Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score in Sudan

Sudan: Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score was 64.21 in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
64.21
Change on year
up 0.6%
World rank
124th
of 191 countries
All-time high
64.58
in 2017
All-time low
60.86
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019

Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score in Sudan, 2014–2019

02040602014201620192014: 60.92015: 63.82016: 64.32017: 64.62018: 63.82019: 64.2

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

Sudan recorded 64.21 for dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score in 2019.

Compared with earlier readings it is up 0.6% on the previous year and up 5.5% over ten years.

That places Sudan 124th out of 191 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score in Sudan, year by year

Annual values for Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score in Sudan, 2014 to 2019.
Year Value Change
2014 60.86 —
2015 63.77 +4.8%
2016 64.25 +0.8%
2017 64.58 +0.5%
2018 63.84 -1.1%
2019 64.21 +0.6%

Sudan compared with similar countries

  • Sudan's 64.21 is above the median for low income countries, which is 48.88, 1.3× the median. (24 countries reporting)
  • Sudan's 64.21 is above the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 62.6, 1.0× the median. (48 countries reporting)

Countries ranked near Sudan

  1. 121 Algeria 65.26 compare
  2. 122 Papua New Guinea 64.54 compare
  3. 123 Belize 64.29 compare
  4. 125 Cyprus 64.15 compare
  5. 126 Trinidad and Tobago 64.13 compare
  6. 127 Togo 64.12 compare

See the full ranking of 191 places →

More private sector data for Sudan

All data for Sudan →

Frequently asked questions

What is dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score in Sudan?
Dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score in Sudan was 64.21 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score recorded in Sudan?
The highest recorded value was 64.58 in 2017.
What is the lowest dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score recorded in Sudan?
The lowest recorded value was 60.86 in 2014.
How does Sudan rank for dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score?
Sudan ranks 124th out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
Is dealing with construction permits (db16-20 methodology) - score rising or falling in Sudan?
Over the last ten years it is up 5.5%. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Sudan data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 6 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score in Sudan. Statizoid. Retrieved 07 October 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/dealing-with-construction-permits-db16-20-methodology-score/sudan/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/dealing-with-construction-permits-db16-20-methodology-score/sudan/">Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score in Sudan</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
191 places, 1,145 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The score for dealing with construction permits is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time, cost to deal with construction permits, as well as the building quality control index that evaluate the quality of building regulations, the strength of quality control and safety mechanisms, liability and insurance regimes and professional certification requirements. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.