Statizoid

Dealing with construction permits: Professional certifications index in Hong Kong, China

Hong Kong, China: Dealing with construction permits: Professional certifications index was 4 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
4 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
of 185 countries
All-time high
4 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
4 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019

Dealing with construction permits: Professional certifications index in Hong Kong, China, 2014–2019

012342014201620192014: 4 DB16-20 methodology2015: 4 DB16-20 methodology2016: 4 DB16-20 methodology2017: 4 DB16-20 methodology2018: 4 DB16-20 methodology2019: 4 DB16-20 methodology

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

Analysis

The most recent figure for dealing with construction permits: professional certifications index in Hong Kong, China is 4 DB16-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.

That places Hong Kong, China 1st out of 185 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.

Dealing with construction permits: Professional certifications index in Hong Kong, China, year by year

Year DB16-20 methodology Change
2014 4 DB16-20 methodology —
2015 4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2016 4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2017 4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2018 4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2019 4 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%

Countries ranked near Hong Kong, China

  1. 1 China (People’s Republic of) 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  2. 1 India 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  3. 1 Indonesia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  4. 1 Nigeria 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  5. 1 Pakistan 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  6. 1 United States 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 1 Russia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 1 Japan 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 1 Antigua and Barbuda 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 1 Armenia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 1 Australia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 1 Austria 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 1 Azerbaijan 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 1 Bahamas 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 1 Belarus 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 1 Bhutan 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 1 Botswana 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 1 Brunei Darussalam 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 1 Bulgaria 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 1 Cameroon 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 1 Canada 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 1 Chile 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 1 Croatia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 1 Cyprus 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 1 Dominican Republic 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 1 Egypt 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 1 Ethiopia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 1 Greece 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 1 Guinea 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 1 Hungary 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 1 Iran, Islamic Republic of 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 1 Ireland 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 1 Israel 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 1 Jamaica 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 1 Kazakhstan 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 1 Kenya 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 1 Korea 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 1 Kuwait 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 1 Latvia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 1 Lebanon 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 1 Lithuania 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 1 Luxembourg 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 1 Malawi 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 1 Malaysia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 1 Malta 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 1 Mauritius 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 1 Republic of Moldova 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 1 Mongolia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 1 Mozambique 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 1 Myanmar 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 1 New Zealand 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 1 North Macedonia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 1 Qatar 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 1 Romania 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 1 Rwanda 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 1 Samoa 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 1 San Marino 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 1 Saudi Arabia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 1 Serbia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 1 Singapore 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 1 Slovenia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 1 South Africa 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 1 Sudan 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 1 Taiwan, China 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 1 Tajikistan 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  67. 1 Tanzania, United Republic of 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  68. 1 Tunisia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  69. 1 Türkiye 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  70. 1 Uganda 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  71. 1 Ukraine 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  72. 1 United Arab Emirates 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  73. 1 Viet Nam 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  74. 1 Palestine, State of 4 DB16-20 methodology compare
  75. 1 Zambia 4 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 185 places →

More private sector data for Hong Kong, China

All data for Hong Kong, China →

Frequently asked questions

What is dealing with construction permits: professional certifications index in Hong Kong, China?
Dealing with construction permits: professional certifications index in Hong Kong, China was 4 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest dealing with construction permits: professional certifications index recorded in Hong Kong, China?
The highest recorded value was 4 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: professional certifications index recorded in Hong Kong, China?
The lowest recorded value was 4 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does Hong Kong, China rank for dealing with construction permits: professional certifications index?
Hong Kong, China ranks 1st out of 185 countries with data for 2019.
Is dealing with construction permits: professional certifications index rising or falling in Hong Kong, China?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Hong Kong, China data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Dealing with construction permits: Professional certifications index (0-4) (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: Professional certifications index in Hong Kong, China. Statizoid. Retrieved 23 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/dealing-with-construction-permits-professional-certifications-index-0-4-db16-20/hong-kong-sar-china/

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-professional-certifications-index-0-4-db16-20/hong-kong-sar-china/">Dealing with construction permits: Professional certifications index in Hong Kong, China</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Dealing with construction permits: Professional certifications index (0-4) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
185 places, 1,109 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The professional certifications index evaluates professional certi?cation requirements. It has two components: (i) the qualification requirements of the professional responsible for verifying that the architectural plans or drawings are in compliance with the building regulations; and (ii) the qualification requirements of the professional who conducts the technical inspections during construction. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.