Belarus vs Hong Kong, China: Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14)
Belarus
83.33
in 2013
Hong Kong, China
83.33
in 2013
Belarus rank
31st
Hong Kong, China rank
31st
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14) over time
- Belarus
- Hong Kong, China
How they compare
Belarus currently reports 83.33 against 83.33 in Hong Kong, China, a difference of 0.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Hong Kong, China has been ahead every year.
Belarus ranks 31st and Hong Kong, China ranks 31st of 184 countries.
Hong Kong, China has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Belarus | Hong Kong, China | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 13.89 | 83.33 | 69.44 | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 83.33 | 83.33 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) (db05-14), Belarus or Hong Kong, China?
- Belarus, at 83.33 against 83.33 in Hong Kong, China as of 2013.
- What is the difference in getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) (db05-14) between Belarus and Hong Kong, China?
- 0, with Belarus ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Hong Kong, China?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2013.
- How do Belarus and Hong Kong, China rank globally for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) (db05-14)?
- Belarus ranks 31st and Hong Kong, China ranks 31st of 184 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for the depth of credit information benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. 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.