Statizoid

Dealing with construction: Quality control during in Cote d'Ivoire

Cote d'Ivoire: Dealing with construction: Quality control during was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ◆ Volatile

Latest (2019)
2 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
20th
of 186 countries
All-time high
2 DB16-20 methodology
in 2016
All-time low
0 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019

Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during in Cote d'Ivoire, 2014–2019

00.511.522014201620192014: 0 DB16-20 methodology2015: 0 DB16-20 methodology2016: 2 DB16-20 methodology2017: 2 DB16-20 methodology2018: 2 DB16-20 methodology2019: 2 DB16-20 methodology

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

Analysis

Cote d'Ivoire recorded 2 DB16-20 methodology for dealing with construction permits: quality control during in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

Cote d'Ivoire ranks 20th of 186 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.

Dealing with construction: Quality control during in Cote d'Ivoire, year by year

Year DB16-20 methodology Change
2014 0 DB16-20 methodology —
2015 0 DB16-20 methodology —
2016 2 DB16-20 methodology —
2017 2 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2018 2 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%
2019 2 DB16-20 methodology +0.0%

Cote d'Ivoire compared with similar countries

  • Cote d'Ivoire's 2 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for lower middle income countries, which is 2 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (47 countries reporting)
  • Cote d'Ivoire's 2 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 2 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (46 countries reporting)

Countries ranked near Cote d'Ivoire

  1. 19 India 2.53 DB16-20 methodology compare
  2. 20 Bangladesh 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  3. 20 Indonesia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  4. 20 Nigeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  5. 20 Pakistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  6. 20 United States 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 20 Mexico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 20 Japan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 20 Albania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 20 Algeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 20 Argentina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 20 Armenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 20 Austria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 20 Azerbaijan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 20 Bahamas 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 20 Bahrain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 20 Belarus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 20 Belgium 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 20 Bhutan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 20 Bolivia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 20 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 20 Botswana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 20 Brunei 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 20 Bulgaria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 20 Burkina Faso 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 20 Cape Verde 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 20 Cambodia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 20 Cameroon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 20 Canada 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 20 Chad 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 20 Chile 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 20 Democratic Republic of Congo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 20 Congo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 20 Costa Rica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 20 Croatia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 20 Cyprus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 20 Czechia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 20 Dominican Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 20 Egypt 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 20 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 20 Ethiopia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 20 Fiji 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 20 Finland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 20 Georgia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 20 Germany 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 20 Ghana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 20 Greece 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 20 Guatemala 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 20 Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 20 Hungary 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 20 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 20 Iran 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 20 Israel 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 20 Italy 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 20 Jamaica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 20 Jordan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 20 Kazakhstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 20 South Korea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 20 Kosovo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 20 Kuwait 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 20 Kyrgyzstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 20 Laos 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 20 Latvia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 20 Lebanon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 20 Lithuania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 20 Malaysia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  67. 20 Maldives 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  68. 20 Malta 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  69. 20 Mauritius 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  70. 20 Moldova 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  71. 20 Mongolia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  72. 20 Montenegro 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  73. 20 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  74. 20 Mozambique 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  75. 20 Myanmar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  76. 20 Namibia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  77. 20 Nepal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  78. 20 North Macedonia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  79. 20 Norway 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  80. 20 Oman 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  81. 20 Palau 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  82. 20 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  83. 20 Philippines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  84. 20 Poland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  85. 20 Portugal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  86. 20 Puerto Rico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  87. 20 Qatar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  88. 20 Romania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  89. 20 San Marino 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  90. 20 Sao Tome and Principe 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  91. 20 Saudi Arabia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  92. 20 Senegal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  93. 20 Serbia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  94. 20 Sierra Leone 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  95. 20 Slovakia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  96. 20 Slovenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  97. 20 South Africa 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  98. 20 Spain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  99. 20 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  100. 20 Saint Lucia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  101. 20 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  102. 20 Sudan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  103. 20 Switzerland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  104. 20 Taiwan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  105. 20 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  106. 20 Tanzania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  107. 20 Thailand 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  108. 20 Tonga 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  109. 20 Tunisia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  110. 20 Turkey 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  111. 20 Uganda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  112. 20 Ukraine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  113. 20 Uruguay 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  114. 20 Uzbekistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  115. 20 Venezuela 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  116. 20 Vietnam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  117. 20 Palestine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  118. 20 Zimbabwe 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  119. 20 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 2 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 186 places →

More private sector data for Cote d'Ivoire

All data for Cote d'Ivoire →

Frequently asked questions

What is dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Cote d'Ivoire?
Dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Cote d'Ivoire was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest dealing with construction permits: quality control during recorded in Cote d'Ivoire?
The highest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2016.
What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: quality control during recorded in Cote d'Ivoire?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does Cote d'Ivoire rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control during?
Cote d'Ivoire ranks 20th out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Cote d'Ivoire data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during 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 during in Cote d'Ivoire. Statizoid. Retrieved 07 November 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/dealing-with-construction-permits-quality-control-during-construction-index-0-3-db16-20/cote-d-ivoire/

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-during-construction-index-0-3-db16-20/cote-d-ivoire/">Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during in Cote d'Ivoire</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during construction index (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
186 places, 1,115 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The quality control during construction index evaluates quality control during the construction process. It has two components: (i) whether inspections are mandated by law during the construction process; (ii) whether inspections during construction are implemented in practice. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.