Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Italy
Italy: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) was 5.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▲ Rising
Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Italy, 2003–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB15-20 methodology.
Analysis
Italy recorded 5.5 DB15-20 methodology for resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in 2019. That is the highest value across all 17 years on record.
The figure is up 37.5% over ten years.
Over the whole period, resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Italy peaked at 5.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2013 and was at its lowest, 4 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.
Italy ranks 34th of 191 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 17 years of available data.
Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Italy, year by year
| Year | DB15-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2004 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2005 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2006 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 5.5 DB15-20 methodology | +37.5% |
| 2014 | 5.5 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 5.5 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 5.5 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 5.5 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 5.5 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 5.5 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4 DB15-20 methodology | 4 DB15-20 methodology | 4 DB15-20 methodology | 7 |
| 2010s | 5.05 DB15-20 methodology | 4 DB15-20 methodology | 5.5 DB15-20 methodology | 10 |
Countries ranked near Italy
- 34 Pakistan 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Mexico 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Brazil 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Austria 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Belarus 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Benin 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Burkina Faso 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Cameroon 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Central African Republic 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Chad 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Colombia 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Comoros 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Democratic Republic of Congo 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Congo 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Cote d'Ivoire 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Czechia 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Djibouti 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Dominican Republic 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Equatorial Guinea 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Estonia 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Gabon 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Georgia 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Greece 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Guinea 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Guinea-Bissau 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Israel 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Kenya 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 South Korea 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Madagascar 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Mali 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Mauritius 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Morocco 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Niger 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Philippines 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Portugal 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Senegal 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Taiwan 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Togo 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 34 Tunisia 5.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
More reference data data for Italy
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 2.5 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 1.48 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 8.94 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.927 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 8.94 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 8.37 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 5.21 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 6.51 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 41.74 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 5.05 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Italy?
- Resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Italy was 5.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) recorded in Italy?
- The highest recorded value was 5.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2013.
- What is the lowest resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) recorded in Italy?
- The lowest recorded value was 4 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- How does Italy rank for resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6)?
- Italy ranks 34th out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
- Is resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) rising or falling in Italy?
- Over the last ten years it is up 37.5%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Italy data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) (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).
About this data
The management of debtor's assets index has six components: (i) whether the debtor (or an insolvency representative on its behalf) can continue performing contracts essential to the debtor’s survival; (ii) whether the debtor (or an insolvency representative on its behalf) can reject overly burdensome contracts; (iii) whether undervalued transactions entered into before commencement of insolvency proceedings can be avoided after proceedings are initiated; (iv) whether transactions entered into before commencement of insolvency proceedings that give preference to one or several creditors can be avoided after proceedings are initiated; (v) whether the insolvency framework includes specific provisions that allow the debtor (or an insolvency representative on its behalf), after commencement of insolvency proceedings, to obtain financing necessary to function during the proceedings; and (vi) whether post-commencement finance receives priority over ordinary unsecured creditors during distribution of assets.