Luxembourg vs East Timor: Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score

Luxembourg
25
in 2013
East Timor
31.25
in 2013
Luxembourg rank
162nd
East Timor rank
159th

Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score over time

  • Luxembourg
  • East Timor
0102030200420082013

How they compare

East Timor currently reports 31.25 against 25 in Luxembourg, a difference of 6.25.

That makes East Timor's figure about 1.2 times Luxembourg's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 8 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Luxembourg ahead.

Luxembourg ranks 162nd and East Timor ranks 159th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Luxembourg East Timor Difference Ahead
2000s 25 12.5 12.5 Luxembourg
2010s 25 17.19 7.81 Luxembourg

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score, Luxembourg or East Timor?
East Timor, at 31.25 against 25 in Luxembourg as of 2013.
What is the difference in getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score between Luxembourg and East Timor?
6.25, with East Timor ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Luxembourg and East Timor?
8 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2013.
How do Luxembourg and East Timor rank globally for getting credit (db05-14 methodology) - score?
Luxembourg ranks 162nd and East Timor ranks 159th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 1,785 data points, 2004–2013
Last refreshed

The score for getting credit benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator set. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB05-14 studies.