Dealing with construction: Liability and insurance in Panama
Panama: Dealing with construction: Liability and insurance was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Panama, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
Panama 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.
That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.
That places Panama 42nd out of 186 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top quarter.
Dealing with construction: Liability and insurance in Panama, 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% |
Panama compared with similar countries
- Panama's 1 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for high income countries, which is 1 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (62 countries reporting)
- Panama's 1 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for Latin America & Caribbean, which is 1 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (33 countries reporting)
Countries ranked near Panama
- 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 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 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 Panama
- Merchandise trade 41.6% (2025)
- Food imports 19.0% (2025)
- Manufactures imports 60.7% (2025)
- Merchandise imports 25.76 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service imports 5.82 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 49.6% (2025)
- Manufactures exports 12.6% (2025)
- Merchandise exports 11.90 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service exports 20.06 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 2,604 current US$ per person (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Panama?
- Dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Panama 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 Panama?
- 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 Panama?
- The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Panama rank for dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes?
- Panama ranks 42nd out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes rising or falling in Panama?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Panama 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.