Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations in United Arab Emirates
United Arab Emirates: Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations in United Arab Emirates, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations in United Arab Emirates stood at 2 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.
United Arab Emirates ranks 1st of 186 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.
Dealing with construction permits: Quality of building regulations in United Arab Emirates, 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 United Arab Emirates
- 1 China 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bangladesh 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 India 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Nigeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Pakistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United States of America 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mexico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Russian Federation 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Japan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Brazil 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Albania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Algeria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Antigua and Barbuda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Argentina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Armenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Australia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Austria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Azerbaijan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bahamas 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bahrain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Barbados 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belarus 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belgium 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belize 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Benin 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bhutan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Brunei Darussalam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bulgaria 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cambodia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cameroon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Canada 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Chile 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Colombia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Costa Rica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Côte d'Ivoire 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Croatia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Czechia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Denmark 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Djibouti 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Dominica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Dominican Republic 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Egypt 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 El Salvador 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Estonia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ethiopia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Finland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 France 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Gabon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Georgia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ghana 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Guatemala 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Hong Kong, China 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Hungary 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ireland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Israel 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Italy 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Jamaica 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Jordan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kazakhstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kenya 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Republic of Korea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kosovo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kuwait 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kyrgyzstan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Latvia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Lebanon 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Lithuania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Luxembourg 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Madagascar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malaysia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Maldives 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malta 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mauritania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mauritius 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mongolia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Myanmar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Namibia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Nepal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Netherlands 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 New Zealand 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Nicaragua 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Niger 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 North Macedonia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Norway 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Oman 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Palau 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Panama 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Peru 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Philippines 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Portugal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Puerto Rico 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Qatar 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Romania 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Rwanda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 San Marino 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saudi Arabia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Senegal 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Serbia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Seychelles 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Singapore 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Slovakia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Slovenia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Solomon Islands 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 South Africa 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Spain 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sri Lanka 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saint Lucia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sudan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sweden 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Switzerland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Taiwan, China 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tanzania, United Republic of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Thailand 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Togo 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Trinidad and Tobago 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tunisia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Türkiye 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uganda 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ukraine 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uruguay 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uzbekistan 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Viet Nam 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Palestine, State of 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Zambia 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 2 DB16-20 methodology compare
More private sector data for United Arab Emirates
- Merchandise trade 208.2% (2024)
- Food imports 5.0% (2023)
- Manufactures imports 54.9% (2023)
- Merchandise imports 618.88 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 2.9% (2023)
- Manufactures exports 8.8% (2023)
- Merchandise exports 706.67 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 61,380 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 1.1 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 16.69 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations in United Arab Emirates?
- Dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations in United Arab Emirates 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 United Arab Emirates?
- 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 United Arab Emirates?
- The lowest recorded value was 2 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does United Arab Emirates rank for dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations?
- United Arab Emirates ranks 1st out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
- Is dealing with construction permits: quality of building regulations rising or falling in United Arab Emirates?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this United Arab Emirates 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).
About this data
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.