Cote d'Ivoire vs Uruguay: Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score

Cote d'Ivoire
57.41
in 2019
Uruguay
57.54
in 2019
Cote d'Ivoire rank
151st
Uruguay rank
150th

Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score over time

  • Cote d'Ivoire
  • Uruguay
0204060201420162019

How they compare

Uruguay currently reports 57.54 against 57.41 in Cote d'Ivoire, a difference of 0.13.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 6 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Uruguay ahead.

Cote d'Ivoire ranks 151st and Uruguay ranks 150th of 188 countries.

Uruguay has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score, Cote d'Ivoire or Uruguay?
Uruguay, at 57.54 against 57.41 in Cote d'Ivoire as of 2019.
What is the difference in dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score between Cote d'Ivoire and Uruguay?
0.13, with Uruguay ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cote d'Ivoire and Uruguay?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Cote d'Ivoire and Uruguay rank globally for dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score?
Cote d'Ivoire ranks 151st and Uruguay ranks 150th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The score for dealing with construction permits is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time, cost to deal with construction permits, as well as the building quality control index that evaluate the quality of building regulations, the strength of quality control and safety mechanisms, liability and insurance regimes and professional certification requirements. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.