Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in United States

United States: Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes was 0.4 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
0.4 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
127th
of 186 countries
All-time high
0.4 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
0.4 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019

Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in United States, 2014–2019

00.10.20.30.42014201620192014: 0.4 DB16-20 methodology2015: 0.4 DB16-20 methodology2016: 0.4 DB16-20 methodology2017: 0.4 DB16-20 methodology2018: 0.4 DB16-20 methodology2019: 0.4 DB16-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.

Analysis

United States recorded 0.4 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 United States 127th out of 186 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in United States, year by year

Annual values for Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes index (0-2) (DB16-20 methodology) in United States, 2014 to 2019.
Year DB16-20 methodology Change
2014 0.4 DB16-20 methodology
2015 0.4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2016 0.4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2017 0.4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2018 0.4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2019 0.4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%

Countries ranked near United States

  1. 128 Bangladesh 0 DB16-20 methodology
  2. 128 Nigeria 0 DB16-20 methodology
  3. 128 Antigua and Barbuda 0 DB16-20 methodology
  4. 128 Armenia 0 DB16-20 methodology
  5. 128 Azerbaijan 0 DB16-20 methodology
  6. 128 Bahamas 0 DB16-20 methodology
  7. 128 Belize 0 DB16-20 methodology
  8. 128 Bhutan 0 DB16-20 methodology
  9. 128 Botswana 0 DB16-20 methodology
  10. 128 Brunei Darussalam 0 DB16-20 methodology
  11. 128 Cambodia 0 DB16-20 methodology
  12. 128 Central African Republic 0 DB16-20 methodology
  13. 128 Cyprus 0 DB16-20 methodology
  14. 128 Dominica 0 DB16-20 methodology
  15. 128 El Salvador 0 DB16-20 methodology
  16. 128 Eswatini 0 DB16-20 methodology
  17. 128 Ethiopia 0 DB16-20 methodology
  18. 128 Finland 0 DB16-20 methodology
  19. 128 Gambia 0 DB16-20 methodology
  20. 128 Grenada 0 DB16-20 methodology
  21. 128 Guyana 0 DB16-20 methodology
  22. 128 Haiti 0 DB16-20 methodology
  23. 128 Iceland 0 DB16-20 methodology
  24. 128 Ireland 0 DB16-20 methodology
  25. 128 Kenya 0 DB16-20 methodology
  26. 128 Kyrgyzstan 0 DB16-20 methodology
  27. 128 Latvia 0 DB16-20 methodology
  28. 128 Lesotho 0 DB16-20 methodology
  29. 128 Liberia 0 DB16-20 methodology
  30. 128 Maldives 0 DB16-20 methodology
  31. 128 Marshall Islands 0 DB16-20 methodology
  32. 128 Micronesia (country) 0 DB16-20 methodology
  33. 128 Mozambique 0 DB16-20 methodology
  34. 128 Myanmar 0 DB16-20 methodology
  35. 128 Nepal 0 DB16-20 methodology
  36. 128 Norway 0 DB16-20 methodology
  37. 128 Palau 0 DB16-20 methodology
  38. 128 Papua New Guinea 0 DB16-20 methodology
  39. 128 Samoa 0 DB16-20 methodology
  40. 128 Saudi Arabia 0 DB16-20 methodology
  41. 128 Seychelles 0 DB16-20 methodology
  42. 128 Sierra Leone 0 DB16-20 methodology
  43. 128 Singapore 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 128 South Africa 0 DB16-20 methodology
  45. 128 South Sudan 0 DB16-20 methodology
  46. 128 Sri Lanka 0 DB16-20 methodology
  47. 128 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0 DB16-20 methodology
  48. 128 Sweden 0 DB16-20 methodology
  49. 128 Switzerland 0 DB16-20 methodology
  50. 128 Tajikistan 0 DB16-20 methodology
  51. 128 Tanzania, United Republic of 0 DB16-20 methodology
  52. 128 Timor-Leste 0 DB16-20 methodology
  53. 128 Trinidad and Tobago 0 DB16-20 methodology
  54. 128 Uganda 0 DB16-20 methodology
  55. 128 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 0 DB16-20 methodology
  56. 128 Vanuatu 0 DB16-20 methodology
  57. 128 Viet Nam 0 DB16-20 methodology
  58. 128 Palestine, State of 0 DB16-20 methodology
  59. 128 Zambia 0 DB16-20 methodology

See the full ranking of 186 places →

More private sector data for United States

All data for United States →

Frequently asked questions

What is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in United States?
Dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes in United States was 0.4 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes recorded in United States?
The highest recorded value was 0.4 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes recorded in United States?
The lowest recorded value was 0.4 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does United States rank for dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes?
United States ranks 127th out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
Is dealing with construction permits: liability and insurance regimes rising or falling in United States?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this United States 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).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in United States. Statizoid. Retrieved 30 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/dealing-with-construction-permits-liability-and-insurance-regimes-index-0-2-db16-20/united-states/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/dealing-with-construction-permits-liability-and-insurance-regimes-index-0-2-db16-20/united-states/">Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes in United States</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Dealing with construction permits: Liability and insurance regimes index (0-2) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
186 places, 1,115 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

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.