Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Portugal
Portugal: 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 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 Portugal, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Portugal 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.
Portugal ranks 42nd of 186 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in Portugal, 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 Portugal
- 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 Panama 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Paraguay 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 42 Peru 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 Portugal
- Merchandise trade 62.1% (2025)
- Food imports 15.9% (2025)
- Manufactures imports 71.6% (2025)
- Merchandise imports 125.85 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 14.4% (2025)
- Manufactures exports 75.4% (2025)
- Merchandise exports 89.42 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 8,276 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.258 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 4.74 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Portugal?
- Dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in Portugal 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 Portugal?
- 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 Portugal?
- The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Portugal rank for dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes?
- Portugal ranks 42nd out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes rising or falling in Portugal?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Portugal 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.