Dealing with construction: Liability and insurance in Equatorial Guinea
Equatorial Guinea: Dealing with construction: Liability and insurance was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Equatorial Guinea, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Equatorial Guinea stood at 1 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 42nd of 186 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Dealing with construction: Liability and insurance in Equatorial Guinea, 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% |
Equatorial Guinea compared with similar countries
- Equatorial Guinea's 1 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for upper middle income countries, which is 1 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (55 countries reporting)
- Equatorial Guinea's 1 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 0.5 DB16-20 methodology, 2.0× the median. (46 countries reporting)
Countries ranked near Equatorial Guinea
- 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 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 Democratic Republic of Congo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Costa Rica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Cote 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 Ecuador 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 South 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 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 Slovakia 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 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Thailand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Tonga 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Turkey 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 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
More private sector data for Equatorial Guinea
- Merchandise trade 33.5% (2025)
- Food imports 31.8% (1983)
- Manufactures imports 64.2% (1983)
- Merchandise imports 1.70 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service imports 184.58 million current US$ (1996)
- Food exports 57.9% (1983)
- Manufactures exports 4.0% (1983)
- Merchandise exports 2.60 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service exports 4.88 million current US$ (1996)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 1,341 current US$ per person (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Equatorial Guinea?
- Dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Equatorial Guinea 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 Equatorial Guinea?
- 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 Equatorial Guinea?
- The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Equatorial Guinea rank for dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 42nd out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes rising or falling in Equatorial Guinea?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Equatorial Guinea 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.