Dealing with construction permits: Quality control during in Slovak Republic
Slovak Republic: Dealing with construction permits: 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 185 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 Slovak Republic, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
Slovak Republic 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.
That places Slovak Republic 20th out of 185 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top quarter.
Countries ranked near Slovak Republic
- 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, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Austria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Azerbaijan, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bahamas, The 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bahrain, Kingdom of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Belarus, Republic of 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 Darussalam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Bulgaria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Burkina Faso 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cabo 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 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Congo, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Costa Rica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Côte d’Ivoire 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Croatia, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Cyprus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Czech Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Dominican Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Egypt, Arab Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Eswatini, Kingdom of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Fiji, Republic of 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, Islamic Republic of 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, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Korea, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kosovo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kuwait 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Kyrgyz Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Lao People's Democratic Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Latvia, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Lebanon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Lithuania, Republic of 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, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Mongolia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Montenegro 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, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Norway 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Oman 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Palau, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Philippines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Poland, Republic of 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, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Saudi Arabia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Senegal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Serbia, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Sierra Leone 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Slovenia, Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 South Africa 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Spain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 St. Kitts and Nevis 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 St. Lucia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Sudan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Switzerland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Chinese Taipei 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 20 Tajikistan, Republic of 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 Türkiye, Republic of 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, República Bolivariana de 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
More private sector data for Slovak Republic
- Merchandise trade 160.5% (2025)
- Food imports 7.3% (2024)
- Manufactures imports 80.7% (2024)
- Merchandise imports 122.60 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 4.7% (2024)
- Manufactures exports 88.6% (2024)
- Merchandise exports 125.44 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 23,171 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.8118 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 8.33 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Slovak Republic?
- Dealing with construction permits: quality control during in Slovak Republic 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 Slovak Republic?
- The highest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: quality control during recorded in Slovak Republic?
- The lowest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Slovak Republic rank for dealing with construction permits: quality control during?
- Slovak Republic ranks 20th out of 185 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: quality control during rising or falling in Slovak Republic?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Slovak Republic 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.