Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Guinea
Guinea: Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ◆ Volatile
Latest (2019)
1 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
42nd
of 185 countries
All-time high
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2016
All-time low
0 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019
Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Guinea, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Guinea stood at 1 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
Guinea ranks 42nd of 185 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Guinea, year by year
| Year | DB16-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 0 DB16-20 methodology | — |
| 2015 | 0 DB16-20 methodology | — |
| 2016 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | — |
| 2017 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Countries ranked near 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, 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 Ecuador 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 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 Guinea
- Merchandise trade 82.7% (2025)
- Food imports 26.6% (2016)
- Manufactures imports 58.5% (2016)
- Merchandise imports 8.34 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 4.3% (2016)
- Manufactures exports 3.7% (2016)
- Merchandise exports 15.10 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 1,000 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.5328 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 53.34 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Guinea?
- Dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in 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 Guinea?
- The highest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2016.
- What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes recorded in Guinea?
- The lowest recorded value was 0 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Guinea rank for dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes?
- Guinea ranks 42nd out of 185 countries with data for 2019.
- Where does this 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.