Dealing with construction: Liability and insurance in Moldova
Moldova: Dealing with construction: Liability and insurance was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Latest (2019)
1 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
42nd
of 186 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 Moldova, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Moldova stood at 1 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.
Moldova ranks 42nd of 186 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Dealing with construction: Liability and insurance in Moldova, 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% |
Moldova compared with similar countries
- Moldova'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)
- Moldova's 1 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for Europe & Central Asia, which is 1 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (49 countries reporting)
Countries ranked near Moldova
- 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 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 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 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 Moldova
- Merchandise trade 72.3% (2025)
- Food imports 14.8% (2025)
- Manufactures imports 59.7% (2025)
- Merchandise imports 10.92 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service imports 2.14 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 58.5% (2025)
- Manufactures exports 36.5% (2025)
- Merchandise exports 3.78 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service exports 3.16 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 1,603 current US$ per person (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Moldova?
- Dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Moldova 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 Moldova?
- 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 Moldova?
- The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Moldova rank for dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes?
- Moldova ranks 42nd out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes rising or falling in Moldova?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Moldova 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.