Jordan vs Lebanon: Registering property (DB05-15 methodology) - Score

Jordan
63.54
in 2014
Lebanon
63.21
in 2014
Jordan rank
101st
Lebanon rank
103rd

Registering property (DB05-15 methodology) - Score over time

  • Jordan
  • Lebanon
0204060200420092014

How they compare

Jordan currently reports 63.54 against 63.21 in Lebanon, a difference of 0.33.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2004 it was Lebanon ahead.

Jordan ranks 101st and Lebanon ranks 103rd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Jordan Lebanon Difference Ahead
2000s 58.81 63.2 4.39 Lebanon
2010s 62.81 63.27 0.467 Lebanon

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher registering property (db05-15 methodology) - score, Jordan or Lebanon?
Jordan, at 63.54 against 63.21 in Lebanon as of 2014.
What is the difference in registering property (db05-15 methodology) - score between Jordan and Lebanon?
0.33, with Jordan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Jordan and Lebanon?
11 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2014.
How do Jordan and Lebanon rank globally for registering property (db05-15 methodology) - score?
Jordan ranks 101st and Lebanon ranks 103rd of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Registering property (DB05-15 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Registering property (DB05-15 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 1,968 data points, 2004–2014
Last refreshed

The score for registering property is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time, cost to transfer property between two local companies, as well as the quality of land administration index that evaluates the reliability of infrastructure, transparency of information, geographic coverage, land dispute resolution and equal access to property rights. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB05-15 studies.