Dealing with construction: Quality control after in Ireland
Ireland: Dealing with construction: Quality control after was 3 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Dealing with construction permits: Quality control after construction in Ireland, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction in Ireland stood at 3 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
Ireland ranks 1st of 186 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.
Dealing with construction: Quality control after in Ireland, year by year
| Year | DB16-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 3 DB16-20 methodology | — |
| 2015 | 3 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 3 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 3 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 3 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 3 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Ireland compared with similar countries
- Ireland's 3 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for high income countries, which is 3 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (62 countries reporting)
- Ireland's 3 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for Europe & Central Asia, which is 3 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (49 countries reporting)
Countries ranked near Ireland
- 1 China 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bangladesh 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 India 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Indonesia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Pakistan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United States 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Russia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Japan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Albania 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Algeria 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Argentina 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Armenia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Australia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Austria 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Azerbaijan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bahamas 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bahrain 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Barbados 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belarus 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belgium 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belize 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bhutan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Botswana 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Brunei 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bulgaria 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Burkina Faso 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cape Verde 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Canada 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Chad 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Chile 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Colombia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Costa Rica 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Croatia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cyprus 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Czechia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Denmark 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Djibouti 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Dominican Republic 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ecuador 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Egypt 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 El Salvador 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Estonia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Eswatini 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Fiji 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Finland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Georgia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Greece 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Guatemala 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Honduras 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Hong Kong 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Hungary 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iceland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iran 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Israel 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Italy 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Jordan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kazakhstan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 South Korea 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kosovo 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kuwait 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kyrgyzstan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Laos 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Latvia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Lebanon 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Lithuania 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Luxembourg 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malawi 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malaysia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malta 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mauritius 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Moldova 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mongolia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Montenegro 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Morocco 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mozambique 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Myanmar 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Namibia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Nepal 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Netherlands 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 New Zealand 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 North Macedonia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Norway 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Oman 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Palau 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Panama 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Papua New Guinea 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Paraguay 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Peru 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Philippines 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Portugal 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Puerto Rico 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Qatar 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Romania 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Rwanda 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 San Marino 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saudi Arabia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Serbia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Seychelles 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sierra Leone 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Singapore 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Slovakia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Slovenia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 South Africa 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Spain 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sri Lanka 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saint Kitts and Nevis 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saint Lucia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sweden 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Switzerland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Taiwan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tajikistan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tanzania 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Thailand 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tonga 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Trinidad and Tobago 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tunisia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Turkey 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uganda 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ukraine 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United Arab Emirates 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United Kingdom 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uruguay 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uzbekistan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Vanuatu 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Venezuela 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Vietnam 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Palestine 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Zimbabwe 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
More private sector data for Ireland
- Merchandise trade 62.7% (2025)
- Food imports 9.3% (2025)
- Manufactures imports 83.9% (2025)
- Merchandise imports 159.22 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service imports 526.22 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 7.4% (2025)
- Manufactures exports 91.4% (2025)
- Merchandise exports 293.42 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service exports 547.62 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 53,501 current US$ per person (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction in Ireland?
- Dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction in Ireland was 3 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction recorded in Ireland?
- The highest recorded value was 3 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction recorded in Ireland?
- The lowest recorded value was 3 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Ireland rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction?
- Ireland ranks 1st out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction rising or falling in Ireland?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Ireland data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Dealing with construction permits: Quality control after construction index (0-3) (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 quality control after construction index evaluates quality control after the construction process. It has two components: (i) whether a final inspection is mandated by law to verify that the building was built in accordance with the approved plans and existing building regulations; and (ii) whether the final inspection is implemented in practice. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.