Dealing with construction: Quality control during in Montenegro
Montenegro: Dealing with construction: Quality control during was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Latest (2019)
2 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
20th
of 186 countries
All-time high
2 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
2 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019
Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during in Montenegro, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
Montenegro 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.
The figure is unchanged over ten years.
Montenegro ranks 20th of 186 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Dealing with construction: Quality control during in Montenegro, year by year
| Year | DB16-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 2 DB16-20 methodology | — |
| 2015 | 2 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 2 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 2 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 2 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 2 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Montenegro compared with similar countries
- Montenegro's 2 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for upper middle income countries, which is 2 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (55 countries reporting)
- Montenegro's 2 DB16-20 methodology is above the median for Europe & Central Asia, which is 2 DB16-20 methodology, 1.0× the median. (49 countries reporting)
Countries ranked near Montenegro
- 19 India 2.53 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bangladesh 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Indonesia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Nigeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Pakistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 United States 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Mexico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Japan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Albania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Algeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Argentina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Armenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Austria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Azerbaijan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bahamas 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bahrain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Belarus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Belgium 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bhutan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bolivia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Botswana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Brunei 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bulgaria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Burkina Faso 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cape Verde 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cambodia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cameroon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Canada 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Chad 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Chile 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Democratic Republic of Congo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Congo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Costa Rica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cote d'Ivoire 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Croatia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cyprus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Czechia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Dominican Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Egypt 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Ethiopia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Fiji 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Finland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Georgia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Germany 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Ghana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Greece 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Guatemala 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Hungary 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Iran 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Israel 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Italy 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Jamaica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Jordan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kazakhstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 South Korea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kosovo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kuwait 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kyrgyzstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Laos 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Latvia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Lebanon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Lithuania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Malaysia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Maldives 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Malta 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Mauritius 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Moldova 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Mongolia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Mozambique 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Myanmar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Namibia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Nepal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 North Macedonia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Norway 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Oman 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Palau 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Philippines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Poland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Portugal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Puerto Rico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Qatar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Romania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 San Marino 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Sao Tome and Principe 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Saudi Arabia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Senegal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Serbia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Sierra Leone 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Slovakia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Slovenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 South Africa 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Spain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Saint Lucia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Sudan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Switzerland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Taiwan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Tanzania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Thailand 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Tonga 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Tunisia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Turkey 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Uganda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Ukraine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Uruguay 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Uzbekistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Venezuela 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Vietnam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Palestine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Zimbabwe 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
More private sector data for Montenegro
- Merchandise trade 61.8% (2025)
- Food imports 23.6% (2025)
- Manufactures imports 63.8% (2025)
- Merchandise imports 5.06 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service imports 1.21 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 18.6% (2025)
- Manufactures exports 36.9% (2025)
- Merchandise exports 646.00 million current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service exports 3.07 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 1,037 current US$ per person (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Montenegro?
- Dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Montenegro 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 Montenegro?
- The highest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: quality control during recorded in Montenegro?
- The lowest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Montenegro rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control during?
- Montenegro ranks 20th out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: quality control during rising or falling in Montenegro?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Montenegro 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).
About this data
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.