Hong Kong, China vs South Africa: Registering property: Cost (% of property value) - Score
Hong Kong, China
48.6%
in 2019
South Africa
46.8%
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
150th
South Africa rank
153rd
Registering property: Cost (% of property value) - Score over time
- Hong Kong, China
- South Africa
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 48.6% against 46.8% in South Africa, a difference of 1.8%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 16 shared years of data; in 2004 it was Hong Kong, China ahead.
Hong Kong, China ranks 150th and South Africa ranks 153rd of 191 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 | South Africa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 71.2% | 35.8% | 35.4% | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 55.7% | 53.4% | 2.3% | Hong Kong, China |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher registering property: cost (% of property value) - score, Hong Kong, China or South Africa?
- Hong Kong, China, at 48.6% against 46.8% in South Africa as of 2019.
- What is the difference in registering property: cost (% of property value) - score between Hong Kong, China and South Africa?
- 1.8%, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and South Africa?
- 16 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and South Africa rank globally for registering property: cost (% of property value) - score?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 150th and South Africa ranks 153rd of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Registering property: Cost (% of property value) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for cost 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.