Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) in China
China: Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2013. ◆ Volatile
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) in China, 2004–2013
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB05-14 methodology.
Analysis
The most recent figure for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in China is 5 DB05-14 methodology, measured in 2013. That is the highest value across all 10 years on record.
The figure is up 25.0% on the previous year and up 25.0% over five years.
Over the whole period, getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in China peaked at 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2013 and was at its lowest, 0 DB05-14 methodology, in 2004.
China ranks 31st of 184 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
The series is highly variable year to year, so single readings are best treated with caution.
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) in China, year by year
| Year | DB05-14 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 0 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2005 | 0 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2006 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2007 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +25.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.67 DB05-14 methodology | 0 DB05-14 methodology | 4 DB05-14 methodology | 6 |
| 2010s | 4.25 DB05-14 methodology | 4 DB05-14 methodology | 5 DB05-14 methodology | 4 |
Countries ranked near China
- 31 India 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Indonesia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Russian Federation 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Japan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Brazil 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Albania 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Australia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Austria 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Azerbaijan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Belarus 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Bhutan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Botswana 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Cape Verde 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Chile 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Colombia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Croatia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Czechia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Estonia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Ghana 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Greece 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Hong Kong 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Iceland 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Iran 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Ireland 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Israel 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Italy 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Kazakhstan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Kosovo 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Kuwait 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Latvia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Lebanon 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Mongolia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Morocco 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 New Zealand 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Oman 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Portugal 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Puerto Rico 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Romania 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Serbia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Singapore 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Spain 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Sri Lanka 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Taiwan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Thailand 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Türkiye 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Ukraine 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 United Arab Emirates 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Uruguay 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Uzbekistan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Palestine, State of 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Zambia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
More private sector data for China
- Merchandise trade 32.6% (2025)
- Food imports 8.1% (2024)
- Manufactures imports 49.3% (2024)
- Merchandise imports 2.58 trillion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 2.4% (2024)
- Manufactures exports 91.2% (2024)
- Merchandise exports 3.77 trillion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 2,682 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.1934 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 5.48 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in China?
- Getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in China was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2013, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) recorded in China?
- The highest recorded value was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2013.
- What is the lowest getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) recorded in China?
- The lowest recorded value was 0 DB05-14 methodology in 2004.
- How does China rank for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6)?
- China ranks 31st out of 184 countries with data for 2013.
- Where does this China data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 10 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
The depth of credit information index measures the coverage, scope and accessibility of credit information available through credit reporting service providers such as credit bureaus or credit registries. The index ranges from 0 to 8 based on the methodology in the DB05-14 studies.