South Korea vs Zambia: Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score

South Korea
80
in 2019
Zambia
80
in 2019
South Korea rank
15th
Zambia rank
15th

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

  • South Korea
  • Zambia
020406080200520122019

How they compare

South Korea currently reports 80 against 80 in Zambia, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was South Korea ahead.

South Korea ranks 15th and Zambia ranks 15th of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade South Korea Zambia Difference Ahead
2000s 84 76 8 South Korea
2010s 80.4 79.6 0.8 South Korea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score, South Korea or Zambia?
South Korea, at 80 against 80 in Zambia as of 2019.
What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score between South Korea and Zambia?
0, with South Korea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for South Korea and Zambia?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do South Korea and Zambia rank globally for dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score?
South Korea ranks 15th and Zambia ranks 15th 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.