Dealing with construction permits: Quality control before construction in Belgium
Belgium: Dealing with construction permits: Quality control before construction was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Dealing with construction permits: Quality control before construction in Belgium, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
The most recent figure for dealing with construction permits: quality control before construction in Belgium is 1 DB16-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
Belgium ranks 1st of 183 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.
Countries ranked near Belgium
- 1 China 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bangladesh 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 India 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Indonesia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Nigeria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Pakistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United States 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mexico 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Russia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Japan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Brazil 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Afghanistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Albania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Algeria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Angola 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Argentina 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Armenia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Australia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Azerbaijan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bahamas 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bahrain 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belarus 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belize 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Benin 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bhutan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bolivia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Brunei 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bulgaria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Burkina Faso 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cape Verde 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cambodia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cameroon 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Canada 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Chile 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Colombia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Comoros 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Democratic Republic of Congo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Congo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Costa Rica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cote d'Ivoire 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cyprus 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Denmark 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Djibouti 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Dominica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Dominican Republic 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ecuador 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Egypt 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 El Salvador 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Estonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Eswatini 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ethiopia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Fiji 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Finland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 France 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Gabon 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Gambia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Georgia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Germany 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ghana 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Greece 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Grenada 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Guatemala 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Guinea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Guinea-Bissau 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Haiti 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Honduras 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Hong Kong 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Hungary 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iceland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iran 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iraq 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ireland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Israel 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Jamaica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Jordan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kazakhstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kenya 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kiribati 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kuwait 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Laos 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Latvia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Lebanon 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Lesotho 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Liberia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Lithuania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Luxembourg 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Madagascar 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malawi 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malaysia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Maldives 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mali 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malta 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mauritania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mauritius 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Moldova 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mongolia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Montenegro 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Morocco 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mozambique 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Myanmar 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Namibia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Nepal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Netherlands 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 New Zealand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Nicaragua 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Niger 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 North Macedonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Norway 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Oman 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Panama 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Papua New Guinea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Paraguay 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Peru 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Philippines 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Poland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Portugal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Puerto Rico 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Qatar 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Romania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Rwanda 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Samoa 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 San Marino 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saudi Arabia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Senegal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Serbia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sierra Leone 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Singapore 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Slovenia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Solomon Islands 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 South Sudan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Spain 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saint Lucia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sudan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Suriname 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sweden 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Switzerland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Taiwan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tajikistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tanzania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Thailand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Togo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tonga 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Trinidad and Tobago 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tunisia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Turkey 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uganda 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United Arab Emirates 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United Kingdom 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uruguay 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uzbekistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Venezuela 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Vietnam 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Palestine 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Zambia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
More private sector data for Belgium
- Merchandise trade 152.4% (2025)
- Food imports 11.8% (2024)
- Manufactures imports 66.2% (2024)
- Merchandise imports 537.70 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 13.3% (2024)
- Manufactures exports 69.1% (2024)
- Merchandise exports 568.11 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service exports 156.88 billion current US$ (2025)
- Transport services 17.2% (2025)
- Computer, communications and other services 56.9% (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: quality control before construction in Belgium?
- Dealing with construction permits: quality control before construction in Belgium was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest dealing with construction permits: quality control before construction recorded in Belgium?
- The highest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: quality control before construction recorded in Belgium?
- The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Belgium rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control before construction?
- Belgium ranks 1st out of 183 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: quality control before construction rising or falling in Belgium?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Belgium data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Dealing with construction permits: Quality control before construction index (0-1) (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 before construction index evaluates quality control in the review of the building plans. The index measures whether by law, a licensed architect or engineer is part of the committee or team that reviews and approves building permit applications and whether that person has the authority to refuse an application if the plans are not in conformity with regulations. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.