Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during construction in Serbia

Name: Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during construction in Serbia
Creator: World Bank
License: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)

Serbia: Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during construction was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)

2 DB16-20 methodology

Change on year

unchanged

World rank

19th

of 183 countries

All-time high

2 DB16-20 methodology

in 2014

All-time low

2 DB16-20 methodology

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during construction in Serbia, 2014–2019

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

Analysis

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

Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.

Serbia ranks 19th of 183 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.

Countries ranked near Serbia

18 India 2.53 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bangladesh 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Indonesia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Nigeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Pakistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 United States 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Mexico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Japan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Albania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Algeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Argentina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Armenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Austria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Azerbaijan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bahamas 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bahrain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Belarus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Belgium 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bhutan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bolivia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Botswana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Brunei 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Bulgaria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Burkina Faso 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Cape Verde 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Cambodia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Cameroon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Canada 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Chad 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Chile 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Democratic Republic of Congo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Congo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Costa Rica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Cote d'Ivoire 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Croatia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Cyprus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Czechia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Dominican Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Egypt 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Ethiopia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Fiji 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Finland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Georgia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Germany 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Ghana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Greece 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Guatemala 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Hungary 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Iran 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Israel 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Italy 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Jamaica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Jordan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Kazakhstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 South Korea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Kuwait 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Kyrgyzstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Laos 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Latvia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Lebanon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Lithuania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Malaysia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Maldives 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Malta 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Mauritius 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Moldova 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Mongolia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Montenegro 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Mozambique 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Myanmar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Namibia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Nepal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 North Macedonia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Norway 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Oman 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Palau 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Philippines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Poland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Portugal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Puerto Rico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Qatar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Romania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 San Marino 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Sao Tome and Principe 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Saudi Arabia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Senegal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Sierra Leone 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Slovakia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Slovenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Spain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Saint Lucia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Sudan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Switzerland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Taiwan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Tanzania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Thailand 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Tonga 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Tunisia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Turkey 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Uganda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Ukraine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Uruguay 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Uzbekistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Venezuela 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Vietnam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Palestine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
19 Zimbabwe 2 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 185 places →

More private sector data for Serbia

Merchandise trade 84.6% (2025)
Food imports 5.8% (2007)
Manufactures imports 69.5% (2007)
Merchandise imports 47.23 billion current US$ (2025)
Food exports 18.6% (2007)
Manufactures exports 65.9% (2007)
Merchandise exports 37.31 billion current US$ (2025)
Commercial service exports 17.22 billion current US$ (2025)
Transport services 22.6% (2025)
Computer, communications and other services 39.2% (2025)

All data for Serbia →

Frequently asked questions

What is dealing with construction permits: quality control during construction in Serbia?: Dealing with construction permits: quality control during construction in Serbia was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest dealing with construction permits: quality control during construction recorded in Serbia?: The highest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: quality control during construction recorded in Serbia?: The lowest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does Serbia rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control during construction?: Serbia ranks 19th out of 183 countries with data for 2019.
Is dealing with construction permits: quality control during construction rising or falling in Serbia?: Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Serbia 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

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: 185 places, 1,109 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed: 10 August 2026

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.