Statizoid

Dealing with construction permits: Quality control after construction in United States

United States: 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 185 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 United States, 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

United States recorded 3 DB16-20 methodology for dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction 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 1st out of 185 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.

Countries ranked near United States

  1. 1 China (People’s Republic of) 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 Russian Federation 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 1 Japan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 1 Albania 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 1 Algeria 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 1 Argentina 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 1 Armenia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 1 Australia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 1 Austria 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 1 Azerbaijan, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 1 Bahamas, The 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 1 Bahrain, Kingdom of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 1 Barbados 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 1 Belarus, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 1 Belgium 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 1 Belize 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 1 Bhutan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 1 Botswana 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 1 Brunei Darussalam 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 1 Bulgaria 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 1 Burkina Faso 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 1 Cabo Verde 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 1 Canada 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 1 Chad 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 1 Chile 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 1 Colombia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 1 Costa Rica 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 1 Croatia, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 1 Cyprus 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 1 Czech Republic 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 1 Denmark 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 1 Djibouti 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 1 Dominican Republic 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 1 Ecuador 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 1 Egypt 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 1 El Salvador 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 1 Estonia, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 1 Eswatini, Kingdom of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 1 Fiji, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 1 Finland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 1 Georgia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 1 Greece 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 1 Guatemala 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 1 Honduras 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 1 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 1 Hungary 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 1 Iceland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 1 Iran, Islamic Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 1 Ireland 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 1 Israel 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 1 Italy 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 1 Jordan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 1 Kazakhstan, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 1 Korea, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 1 Kosovo 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 1 Kuwait 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 1 Kyrgyzstan 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 1 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 1 Latvia, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 1 Lebanon 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 1 Lithuania, Republic of 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, Republic of 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, Republic of 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, The 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  81. 1 New Zealand 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  82. 1 North Macedonia, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  83. 1 Norway 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  84. 1 Oman 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  85. 1 Palau, Republic of 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 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, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  97. 1 Saudi Arabia 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  98. 1 Serbia, Republic of 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, Republic of 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 Province of China 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  112. 1 Tajikistan, Republic of 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 Türkiye, Republic of 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, Republic of 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  125. 1 Vanuatu 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  126. 1 Venezuela, República Bolivariana de 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  127. 1 Viet Nam 3 DB16-20 methodology compare
  128. 1 Palestine 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 United States

All data for United States →

Frequently asked questions

What is dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction in United States?
Dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction in United States 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 United States?
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 United States?
The lowest recorded value was 3 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does United States rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction?
United States ranks 1st out of 185 countries with data for 2019.
Is dealing with construction permits: quality control after construction 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: 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).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Dealing with construction permits: Quality control after construction in United States. Statizoid. Retrieved 18 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/dealing-with-construction-permits-quality-control-after-construction-index-0-3-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-quality-control-after-construction-index-0-3-db16-20/united-states/">Dealing with construction permits: Quality control after construction in United States</a> — Statizoid

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.