Bolivia, Plurinational State of vs Mongolia: Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-8) (DB15-20)
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
87.5
in 2019
Mongolia
87.5
in 2019
Bolivia, Plurinational State of rank
54th
Mongolia rank
54th
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-8) (DB15-20) over time
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of
- Mongolia
How they compare
Bolivia, Plurinational State of currently reports 87.5 against 87.5 in Mongolia, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 7 shared years of data; in 2013 it was Bolivia, Plurinational State of ahead.
Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 54th and Mongolia ranks 54th of 191 countries.
Bolivia, Plurinational State of has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-8) (db15-20), Bolivia, Plurinational State of or Mongolia?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of, at 87.5 against 87.5 in Mongolia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-8) (db15-20) between Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Mongolia?
- 0, with Bolivia, Plurinational State of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Mongolia?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2019.
- How do Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Mongolia rank globally for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-8) (db15-20)?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 54th and Mongolia ranks 54th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-8) (DB15-20 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 DB15-20 studies.