Statizoid

Dealing with construction permits: Quality control after construction in Lithuania

Lithuania: Dealing with construction permits: Quality control after construction was 3 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
3 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
of 183 countries
All-time high
3 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
3 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019

Dealing with construction permits: Quality control after construction in Lithuania, 2014–2019

01232014201620192014: 3 DB16-20 methodology2015: 3 DB16-20 methodology2016: 3 DB16-20 methodology2017: 3 DB16-20 methodology2018: 3 DB16-20 methodology2019: 3 DB16-20 methodology

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

Analysis

In 2019, dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction in Lithuania stood at 3 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

The figure is unchanged over ten years.

That places Lithuania 1st out of 183 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.

Countries ranked near Lithuania

  1. 1 China 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  2. 1 Bangladesh 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  3. 1 India 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  4. 1 Indonesia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  5. 1 Pakistan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  6. 1 United States 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 1 Russian Federation 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 1 Japan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 1 Albania 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 1 Algeria 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 1 Argentina 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 1 Armenia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 1 Australia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 1 Austria 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 1 Azerbaijan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 1 Bahamas, The 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 1 Bahrain 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 1 Barbados 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 1 Belarus 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 1 Belgium 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 1 Belize 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 1 Bhutan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 1 Botswana 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 1 Brunei Darussalam 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 1 Bulgaria 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 1 Burkina Faso 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 1 Cabo Verde 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 1 Canada 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 1 Chad 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 1 Chile 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 1 Colombia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 1 Costa Rica 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 1 Croatia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 1 Cyprus 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 1 Czechia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 1 Denmark 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 1 Djibouti 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 1 Dominican Republic 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 1 Ecuador 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 1 Egypt, Arab Rep. 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 1 El Salvador 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 1 Estonia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 1 Eswatini 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 1 Fiji 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 1 Finland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 1 Georgia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 1 Greece 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 1 Guatemala 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 1 Honduras 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 1 Hong Kong 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 1 Hungary 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 1 Iceland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 1 Iran, Islamic Rep. 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 1 Ireland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 1 Israel 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 1 Italy 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 1 Jordan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 1 Kazakhstan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 1 Korea, Rep. 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 1 Kosovo 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 1 Kuwait 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 1 Kyrgyz Republic 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 1 Lao PDR 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 1 Latvia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 1 Lebanon 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  67. 1 Luxembourg 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  68. 1 Malawi 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  69. 1 Malaysia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  70. 1 Malta 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  71. 1 Mauritius 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  72. 1 Moldova 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  73. 1 Mongolia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  74. 1 Montenegro 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  75. 1 Morocco 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  76. 1 Mozambique 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  77. 1 Myanmar 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  78. 1 Namibia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  79. 1 Nepal 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  80. 1 Netherlands 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  81. 1 New Zealand 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  82. 1 North Macedonia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  83. 1 Norway 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  84. 1 Oman 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  85. 1 Palau 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  86. 1 Panama 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  87. 1 Papua New Guinea 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  88. 1 Paraguay 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  89. 1 Peru 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  90. 1 Philippines 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  91. 1 Portugal 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  92. 1 Puerto Rico (US) 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  93. 1 Qatar 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  94. 1 Romania 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  95. 1 Rwanda 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  96. 1 San Marino 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  97. 1 Saudi Arabia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  98. 1 Serbia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  99. 1 Seychelles 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  100. 1 Sierra Leone 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  101. 1 Singapore 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  102. 1 Slovak Republic 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  103. 1 Slovenia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  104. 1 South Africa 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  105. 1 Spain 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  106. 1 Sri Lanka 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  107. 1 St. Kitts and Nevis 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  108. 1 St. Lucia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  109. 1 Sweden 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  110. 1 Switzerland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  111. 1 Taiwan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  112. 1 Tajikistan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  113. 1 Tanzania 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  114. 1 Thailand 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  115. 1 Tonga 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  116. 1 Trinidad and Tobago 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  117. 1 Tunisia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  118. 1 Turkiye 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  119. 1 Uganda 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  120. 1 Ukraine 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  121. 1 United Arab Emirates 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  122. 1 United Kingdom 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  123. 1 Uruguay 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  124. 1 Uzbekistan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  125. 1 Vanuatu 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  126. 1 Venezuela, RB 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  127. 1 Viet Nam 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  128. 1 West Bank and Gaza 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  129. 1 Zimbabwe 3 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 185 places →

More private sector data for Lithuania

All data for Lithuania →

Frequently asked questions

What is dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction in Lithuania?
Dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction in Lithuania 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 Lithuania?
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 Lithuania?
The lowest recorded value was 3 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does Lithuania rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction?
Lithuania ranks 1st out of 183 countries with data for 2019.
Is dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction rising or falling in Lithuania?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Lithuania 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

Indicator
Dealing with construction permits: Quality control after construction index (0-3) (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 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.