Congo, Democratic Republic of the vs Egypt: Registering property: Quality of land administration index (0-30)
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
30
in 2019
Egypt
30
in 2019
Congo, Democratic Republic of the rank
132nd
Egypt rank
132nd
Registering property: Quality of land administration index (0-30) over time
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the
- Egypt
How they compare
Congo, Democratic Republic of the currently reports 30 against 30 in Egypt, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Congo, Democratic Republic of the ahead.
Congo, Democratic Republic of the ranks 132nd and Egypt ranks 132nd of 191 countries.
Congo, Democratic Republic of the has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher registering property: quality of land administration index (0-30), Congo, Democratic Republic of the or Egypt?
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the, at 30 against 30 in Egypt as of 2019.
- What is the difference in registering property: quality of land administration index (0-30) between Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Egypt?
- 0, with Congo, Democratic Republic of the ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Egypt?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Egypt rank globally for registering property: quality of land administration index (0-30)?
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the ranks 132nd and Egypt ranks 132nd of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Registering property: Quality of land administration index (0-30) (DB17-20 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 quality of land administration index 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, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.