Hong Kong, China vs Mongolia: Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14)
Hong Kong, China
83.33
in 2013
Mongolia
83.33
in 2013
Hong Kong, China rank
31st
Mongolia rank
31st
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14) over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Mongolia
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 83.33 against 83.33 in Mongolia, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2004 it was Hong Kong, China ahead.
Hong Kong, China ranks 31st and Mongolia 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 | Hong Kong, China | Mongolia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 83.33 | 33.33 | 50 | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 83.33 | 70.83 | 12.5 | Hong Kong, China |
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), Hong Kong, China or Mongolia?
- Hong Kong, China, at 83.33 against 83.33 in Mongolia as of 2013.
- What is the difference in getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) (db05-14) between Hong Kong, China and Mongolia?
- 0, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Mongolia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2013.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Mongolia rank globally for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) (db05-14)?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 31st and Mongolia 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.