Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in United States
United States: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) was 6 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in United States, 2003–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB15-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in United States stood at 6 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 United States peaked at 6 DB15-20 methodology in 2003 and was at its lowest, 6 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.
United States ranks 1st of 191 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.
Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in United States, year by year
| Year | DB15-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2004 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2005 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2006 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 6 DB15-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 6 DB15-20 methodology | 6 DB15-20 methodology | 6 DB15-20 methodology | 7 |
| 2010s | 6 DB15-20 methodology | 6 DB15-20 methodology | 6 DB15-20 methodology | 10 |
Countries ranked near United States
- 1 China 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Japan 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Afghanistan 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Albania 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Azerbaijan 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bahrain 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belgium 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Denmark 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Finland 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 France 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Germany 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iceland 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kazakhstan 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kosovo 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Liberia 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Micronesia (country) 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Montenegro 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Netherlands 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 North Macedonia 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Poland 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Puerto Rico 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Romania 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Serbia 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Slovenia 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 South Africa 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Spain 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sweden 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Timor-Leste 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 United Arab Emirates 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uruguay 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 6 DB15-20 methodology compare
More reference data data for United States
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 19.34 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 24.55 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 119.42 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 20.7 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 119.42 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 64.85 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 52.14 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 133.45 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 589.96 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 112.69 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in United States?
- Resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) in United States was 6 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 United States?
- The highest recorded value was 6 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- What is the lowest resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) recorded in United States?
- The lowest recorded value was 6 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- How does United States rank for resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6)?
- United States ranks 1st out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
- Is resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) rising or falling in United States?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this United States 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.