Statizoid

Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during in Sao Tome and Principe

Sao Tome and Principe: Dealing with construction permits: 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 Sao Tome and Principe, 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

In 2019, dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Sao Tome and Principe stood at 2 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

Sao Tome and Principe ranks 20th of 186 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.

Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during in Sao Tome and Principe, 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%

Countries ranked near Sao Tome and Principe

  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 of America 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, Plurinational State of 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 Darussalam 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 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 20 Congo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 20 Costa Rica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 20 Côte d'Ivoire 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 20 Croatia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 20 Cyprus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 20 Czechia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 20 Dominican Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 20 Egypt 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 20 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 20 Ethiopia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 20 Fiji 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 20 Finland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 20 Georgia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 20 Germany 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 20 Ghana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 20 Greece 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 20 Guatemala 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 20 Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 20 Hungary 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 20 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 20 Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 20 Israel 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 20 Italy 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 20 Jamaica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 20 Jordan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 20 Kazakhstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 20 Republic of Korea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 20 Kosovo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 20 Kuwait 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 20 Kyrgyzstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 20 Lao People's Democratic Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 20 Latvia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 20 Lebanon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 20 Lithuania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  67. 20 Malaysia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  68. 20 Maldives 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  69. 20 Malta 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  70. 20 Mauritius 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  71. 20 Republic of Moldova 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  72. 20 Mongolia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  73. 20 Montenegro 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  74. 20 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  75. 20 Mozambique 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  76. 20 Myanmar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  77. 20 Namibia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  78. 20 Nepal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  79. 20 North Macedonia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  80. 20 Norway 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  81. 20 Oman 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  82. 20 Palau 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  83. 20 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  84. 20 Philippines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  85. 20 Poland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  86. 20 Portugal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  87. 20 Puerto Rico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  88. 20 Qatar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  89. 20 Romania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  90. 20 San Marino 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, China 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  105. 20 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  106. 20 Tanzania, United Republic of 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 Türkiye 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, Bolivarian Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  116. 20 Viet Nam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  117. 20 Palestine, State of 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 Sao Tome and Principe

All data for Sao Tome and Principe →

Frequently asked questions

What is dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Sao Tome and Principe?
Dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Sao Tome and Principe 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 Sao Tome and Principe?
The highest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2016.
What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: quality control during recorded in Sao Tome and Principe?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does Sao Tome and Principe rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control during?
Sao Tome and Principe ranks 20th out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Sao Tome and Principe 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 Sao Tome and Principe. Statizoid. Retrieved 26 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/dealing-with-construction-permits-quality-control-during-construction-index-0-3-db16-20/sao-tome-and-principe/

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/sao-tome-and-principe/">Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during in Sao Tome and Principe</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.