Statizoid

Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations in Chile

Chile: Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
2 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
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 of building regulations in Chile, 2014–2019

00.511.522014201620192014: 2 DB16-20 methodology2015: 2 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 of building regulations in Chile 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.

Chile ranks 1st of 186 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.

Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations in Chile, 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%

Countries ranked near Chile

  1. 1 China 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  2. 1 Bangladesh 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  3. 1 India 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  4. 1 Nigeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  5. 1 Pakistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  6. 1 United States 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 1 Mexico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 1 Russia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 1 Japan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 1 Brazil 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 1 Albania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 1 Algeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 1 Antigua and Barbuda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 1 Argentina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 1 Armenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 1 Australia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 1 Austria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 1 Azerbaijan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 1 Bahamas 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 1 Bahrain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 1 Barbados 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 1 Belarus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 1 Belgium 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 1 Belize 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 1 Benin 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 1 Bhutan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 1 Brunei 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 1 Bulgaria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 1 Cambodia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 1 Cameroon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 1 Canada 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 1 Colombia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 1 Democratic Republic of Congo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 1 Costa Rica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 1 Cote d'Ivoire 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 1 Croatia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 1 Czechia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 1 Denmark 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 1 Djibouti 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 1 Dominica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 1 Dominican Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 1 Egypt 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 1 El Salvador 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 1 Estonia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 1 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 1 Ethiopia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 1 Finland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 1 France 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 1 Gabon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 1 Georgia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 1 Ghana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 1 Guatemala 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 1 Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 1 Hong Kong 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 1 Hungary 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 1 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 1 Iran 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 1 Ireland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 1 Israel 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 1 Italy 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 1 Jamaica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 1 Jordan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 1 Kazakhstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 1 Kenya 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 1 South Korea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  67. 1 Kosovo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  68. 1 Kuwait 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  69. 1 Kyrgyzstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  70. 1 Latvia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  71. 1 Lebanon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  72. 1 Lithuania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  73. 1 Luxembourg 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  74. 1 Madagascar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  75. 1 Malaysia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  76. 1 Maldives 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  77. 1 Malta 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  78. 1 Mauritania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  79. 1 Mauritius 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  80. 1 Mongolia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  81. 1 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  82. 1 Myanmar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  83. 1 Namibia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  84. 1 Nepal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  85. 1 Netherlands 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  86. 1 New Zealand 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  87. 1 Nicaragua 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  88. 1 Niger 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  89. 1 North Macedonia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  90. 1 Norway 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  91. 1 Oman 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  92. 1 Palau 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  93. 1 Panama 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  94. 1 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  95. 1 Peru 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  96. 1 Philippines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  97. 1 Portugal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  98. 1 Puerto Rico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  99. 1 Qatar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  100. 1 Romania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  101. 1 Rwanda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  102. 1 San Marino 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  103. 1 Saudi Arabia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  104. 1 Senegal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  105. 1 Serbia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  106. 1 Seychelles 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  107. 1 Singapore 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  108. 1 Slovakia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  109. 1 Slovenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  110. 1 Solomon Islands 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  111. 1 South Africa 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  112. 1 Spain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  113. 1 Sri Lanka 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  114. 1 Saint Lucia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  115. 1 Sudan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  116. 1 Sweden 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  117. 1 Switzerland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  118. 1 Taiwan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  119. 1 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  120. 1 Tanzania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  121. 1 Thailand 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  122. 1 Togo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  123. 1 Trinidad and Tobago 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  124. 1 Tunisia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  125. 1 Turkey 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  126. 1 Uganda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  127. 1 Ukraine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  128. 1 United Arab Emirates 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  129. 1 United Kingdom 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  130. 1 Uruguay 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  131. 1 Uzbekistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  132. 1 Vietnam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  133. 1 Palestine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  134. 1 Zambia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
  135. 1 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 2 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 186 places →

More private sector data for Chile

All data for Chile →

Frequently asked questions

What is dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations in Chile?
Dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations in Chile was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations recorded in Chile?
The highest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
What is the lowest dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations recorded in Chile?
The lowest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does Chile rank for dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations?
Chile ranks 1st out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
Is dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations rising or falling in Chile?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Chile data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations index (0-2) (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 of building regulations in Chile. Statizoid. Retrieved 27 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/dealing-with-construction-permits-quality-of-building-regulations-index-0-2-db16-20/chile/

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-of-building-regulations-index-0-2-db16-20/chile/">Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations in Chile</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations index (0-2) (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 of building regulations index evaluates the accessibility and transparency of building regulations. It has two components: (i) whether building regulations are easily accessible; and (ii) whether the requirements for obtaining a building permit are clearly specified. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.