Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Ecuador
Ecuador: Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Latest (2019)
1 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
42nd
of 185 countries
All-time high
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019
Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Ecuador, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
Ecuador recorded 1 DB16-20 methodology for dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
The figure is unchanged over ten years.
Ecuador ranks 42nd of 185 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Ecuador, year by year
| Year | DB16-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | — |
| 2015 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Countries ranked near Ecuador
- 41 Mexico 1.17 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Russia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Japan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Brazil 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Afghanistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Angola 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Argentina 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Australia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Bahrain 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Belarus 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Burundi 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Chile 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Comoros 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Costa Rica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Côte d'Ivoire 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Croatia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Czechia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Denmark 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Djibouti 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Dominican Republic 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Equatorial Guinea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Estonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Fiji 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Georgia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Ghana 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Greece 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Guatemala 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Guinea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Honduras 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Hungary 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Jamaica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Jordan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Kazakhstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Korea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Kosovo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Lithuania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Madagascar 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Malaysia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Republic of Moldova 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Montenegro 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Netherlands 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Niger 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 North Macedonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Oman 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Panama 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Paraguay 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Peru 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Portugal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Puerto Rico 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Qatar 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Romania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 San Marino 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Slovak Republic 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Slovenia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Solomon Islands 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Spain 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Sudan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Taiwan, China 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Thailand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Tonga 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Türkiye 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Ukraine 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Uruguay 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Uzbekistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
More private sector data for Ecuador
- Merchandise trade 53.6% (2025)
- Food imports 12.2% (2024)
- Manufactures imports 59.2% (2024)
- Merchandise imports 32.65 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 53.7% (2024)
- Manufactures exports 4.9% (2024)
- Merchandise exports 37.15 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 2,031 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.2851 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 7.93 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Ecuador?
- Dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Ecuador was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes recorded in Ecuador?
- The highest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes recorded in Ecuador?
- The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Ecuador rank for dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes?
- Ecuador ranks 42nd out of 185 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes rising or falling in Ecuador?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Ecuador data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes index (0-2) (DB16-20 methodology). 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).
About this data
The liability and insurance regimes index evaluates the stringency of latent defect liability and insurance regimes. It has two components: (i) whether any parties involved in the construction process are held legally liable for latent defects such as structural flaws or problems in the building once it is in use; (ii) whether any party involved in the construction process is legally required to obtain a latent defect liability or decennial (10 years) liability insurance policy to cover possible structural flaws or problems in the building once it is in use. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.