Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Suriname
Suriname: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) was 4 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Suriname, 2003–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB15-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Suriname stood at 4 DB15-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 17 years on record.
The figure is unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Suriname peaked at 4 DB15-20 methodology in 2003 and was at its lowest, 4 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.
Suriname ranks 97th of 191 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Suriname, 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 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 4 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 | 4 DB15-20 methodology | 4 DB15-20 methodology | 4 DB15-20 methodology | 10 |
Countries ranked near Suriname
- 97 Angola 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Argentina 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Burundi 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Cambodia 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Croatia 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Egypt 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 El Salvador 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Honduras 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Iraq 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Jordan 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Kuwait 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Libya 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Lithuania 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Malawi 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Mauritania 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Moldova 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Mongolia 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Mozambique 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Nepal 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Oman 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Paraguay 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Qatar 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Sao Tome and Principe 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Singapore 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Slovakia 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Switzerland 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Tanzania 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Ukraine 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Zambia 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 97 Zimbabwe 4 DB15-20 methodology compare
More reference data data for Suriname
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0324 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.0374 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 0.1239 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0109 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 0.1239 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.1088 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.0507 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.2131 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 0.6104 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0594 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Suriname?
- Resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in Suriname was 4 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 Suriname?
- The highest recorded value was 4 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- What is the lowest resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) recorded in Suriname?
- The lowest recorded value was 4 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- How does Suriname rank for resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6)?
- Suriname ranks 97th out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
- Is resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) rising or falling in Suriname?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Suriname 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.