Australia vs Austria: Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score

Australia
76
in 2019
Austria
76
in 2019
Australia rank
27th
Austria rank
27th

Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score over time

  • Australia
  • Austria
020406080200520122019

How they compare

Australia currently reports 76 against 76 in Austria, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Austria ahead.

Australia ranks 27th and Austria ranks 27th of 188 countries.

Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Austria Difference Ahead
2000s 80 79.2 0.8 Australia
2010s 78.4 76 2.4 Australia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score, Australia or Austria?
Australia, at 76 against 76 in Austria as of 2019.
What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score between Australia and Austria?
0, with Australia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Austria?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Australia and Austria rank globally for dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score?
Australia ranks 27th and Austria ranks 27th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - 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: Procedures (number) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 2,783 data points, 2005–2019
Last refreshed

The score for the number procedures benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.