Statizoid

Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) in Papua New Guinea

Papua New Guinea: Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
1 DB15-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
86th
of 190 countries
All-time high
1 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
All-time low
1 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
Years of data
17
2003–2019

Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) in Papua New Guinea, 2003–2019

00.20.40.60.812003201120192003: 1 DB15-20 methodology2004: 1 DB15-20 methodology2005: 1 DB15-20 methodology2006: 1 DB15-20 methodology2007: 1 DB15-20 methodology2008: 1 DB15-20 methodology2009: 1 DB15-20 methodology2010: 1 DB15-20 methodology2011: 1 DB15-20 methodology2012: 1 DB15-20 methodology2013: 1 DB15-20 methodology2014: 1 DB15-20 methodology2015: 1 DB15-20 methodology2016: 1 DB15-20 methodology2017: 1 DB15-20 methodology2018: 1 DB15-20 methodology2019: 1 DB15-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB15-20 methodology.

Analysis

The most recent figure for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) in Papua New Guinea is 1 DB15-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 17 years on record.

The figure is unchanged over ten years.

Over the whole period, resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) in Papua New Guinea peaked at 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2003 and was at its lowest, 1 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.

That places Papua New Guinea 86th out of 190 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
2000s 1 DB15-20 methodology 1 DB15-20 methodology 1 DB15-20 methodology 7
2010s 1 DB15-20 methodology 1 DB15-20 methodology 1 DB15-20 methodology 10

Countries ranked near Papua New Guinea

  1. 86 India 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  2. 86 Nigeria 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  3. 86 Japan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  4. 86 Algeria 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  5. 86 Antigua and Barbuda 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  6. 86 Argentina 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  7. 86 Armenia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  8. 86 Bahamas 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  9. 86 Bahrain 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  10. 86 Benin 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  11. 86 Bhutan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  12. 86 Brunei Darussalam 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  13. 86 Burkina Faso 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  14. 86 Burundi 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  15. 86 Cameroon 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  16. 86 Central African Republic 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  17. 86 Chad 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  18. 86 Comoros 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  19. 86 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  20. 86 Congo 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  21. 86 Costa Rica 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  22. 86 Côte d'Ivoire 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  23. 86 Cyprus 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  24. 86 Ecuador 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  25. 86 Equatorial Guinea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  26. 86 Eritrea, The State of 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  27. 86 Eswatini 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  28. 86 Ethiopia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  29. 86 France 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  30. 86 Gabon 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  31. 86 Greece 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  32. 86 Guinea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  33. 86 Guinea-Bissau 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  34. 86 Haiti 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  35. 86 Honduras 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  36. 86 Hong Kong, China 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  37. 86 Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  38. 86 Iraq 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  39. 86 Ireland 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  40. 86 Jordan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  41. 86 Republic of Korea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  42. 86 Kuwait 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  43. 86 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  44. 86 Lesotho 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  45. 86 Liberia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  46. 86 Libya 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  47. 86 Lithuania 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  48. 86 Luxembourg 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  49. 86 Madagascar 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  50. 86 Malawi 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  51. 86 Mali 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  52. 86 Malta 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  53. 86 Montenegro 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  54. 86 Namibia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  55. 86 Niger 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  56. 86 Oman 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  57. 86 Qatar 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  58. 86 Samoa 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  59. 86 Senegal 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  60. 86 Sierra Leone 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  61. 86 Singapore 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  62. 86 Slovenia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  63. 86 Solomon Islands 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  64. 86 South Sudan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  65. 86 Spain 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  66. 86 Sri Lanka 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  67. 86 Syrian Arab Republic 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  68. 86 Tajikistan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  69. 86 Tanzania, United Republic of 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  70. 86 Togo 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  71. 86 Tonga 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  72. 86 Tunisia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  73. 86 Uganda 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  74. 86 United Arab Emirates 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  75. 86 Vanuatu 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  76. 86 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  77. 86 Viet Nam 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  78. 86 Palestine, State of 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  79. 86 Yemen 1 DB15-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Papua New Guinea

All data for Papua New Guinea →

Frequently asked questions

What is resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) in Papua New Guinea?
Resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) in Papua New Guinea was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) recorded in Papua New Guinea?
The highest recorded value was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
What is the lowest resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) recorded in Papua New Guinea?
The lowest recorded value was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
How does Papua New Guinea rank for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4)?
Papua New Guinea ranks 86th out of 190 countries with data for 2019.
Is resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) rising or falling in Papua New Guinea?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Papua New Guinea data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) (DB15-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 17 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) in Papua New Guinea. Statizoid. Retrieved 19 August 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/resolving-insolvency-creditor-participation-index-0-4-db15-20-methodology/papua-new-guinea/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/resolving-insolvency-creditor-participation-index-0-4-db15-20-methodology/papua-new-guinea/">Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) in Papua New Guinea</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) (DB15-20 methodology)
Unit
DB15-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 3,230 data points, 2003–2019
Last refreshed

The creditor participation index has four components: (i) whether creditors appoint the insolvency representative or approve, ratify or reject the appointment of the insolvency representative; (ii) Whether creditors are required to approve the sale of substantial assets of the debtor in the course of insol­vency proceedings; (iii) Whether an individual creditor has the right to access financial information about the debtor during insolvency proceedings; and (iv) Whether an individual creditor can object to a decision of the court or of the insolvency representative to approve or reject claims against the debtor brought by the creditor itself and by other creditors.