Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) in Hong Kong, China
Hong Kong, China: Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2013. ▬ Flat
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) in Hong Kong, 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 Hong Kong, China is 5 DB05-14 methodology, measured in 2013. That is the highest value across all 10 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Hong Kong, China peaked at 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2004 and was at its lowest, 5 DB05-14 methodology, in 2004.
Hong Kong, China ranks 31st of 184 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) in Hong Kong, China, year by year
| Year | DB05-14 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2005 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2006 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 5 DB05-14 methodology | 5 DB05-14 methodology | 5 DB05-14 methodology | 6 |
| 2010s | 5 DB05-14 methodology | 5 DB05-14 methodology | 5 DB05-14 methodology | 4 |
Countries ranked near Hong Kong, China
- 31 China 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 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 Iceland 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Iran, Islamic Republic of 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, China 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 Hong Kong, China
- Merchandise trade 371.0% (2025)
- Food imports 3.3% (2024)
- Manufactures imports 83.0% (2024)
- Merchandise imports 831.83 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 1.6% (2024)
- Manufactures exports 87.4% (2024)
- Merchandise exports 753.58 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 100,492 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 1.76 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 16.74 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Hong Kong, China?
- Getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Hong Kong, 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 Hong Kong, China?
- The highest recorded value was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2004.
- What is the lowest getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) recorded in Hong Kong, China?
- The lowest recorded value was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2004.
- How does Hong Kong, China rank for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6)?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 31st out of 184 countries with data for 2013.
- Is getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) rising or falling in Hong Kong, China?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Hong Kong, 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.