Getting credit: Depth of credit information index … 0-6 DB05-14 in Israel
Israel: Getting credit: Depth of credit information index … 0-6 DB05-14 was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2013. ▲ Rising
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) in Israel, 2004–2013
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB05-14 methodology.
Analysis
In 2013, getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Israel stood at 5 DB05-14 methodology. That is the highest value across all 10 years on record.
The figure is up 66.7% over ten years.
Over the whole period, getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Israel peaked at 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2005 and was at its lowest, 3 DB05-14 methodology, in 2004.
Israel ranks 31st of 184 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index … 0-6 DB05-14 in Israel, year by year
| Year | DB05-14 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 3 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2005 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +66.7% |
| 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% |
Israel compared with similar countries
- Israel's 5 DB05-14 methodology is above the median for high income countries, which is 5 DB05-14 methodology, 1.0× the median. (59 countries reporting)
- Israel's 5 DB05-14 methodology is above the median for Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan, which is 4 DB05-14 methodology, 1.2× the median. (21 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.67 DB05-14 methodology | 3 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 Israel
- 31 China 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 India 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Indonesia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Russia 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 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 Turkey 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 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Palestine 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 Israel
- Merchandise trade 25.3% (2025)
- Food imports 11.3% (2025)
- Manufactures imports 75.2% (2025)
- Merchandise imports 95.48 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service imports 56.17 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 2.2% (2025)
- Manufactures exports 86.8% (2025)
- Merchandise exports 59.01 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service exports 90.67 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 5,829 current US$ per person (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Israel?
- Getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Israel 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 Israel?
- The highest recorded value was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2005.
- What is the lowest getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) recorded in Israel?
- The lowest recorded value was 3 DB05-14 methodology in 2004.
- How does Israel rank for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6)?
- Israel ranks 31st out of 184 countries with data for 2013.
- Is getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) rising or falling in Israel?
- Over the last ten years it is up 66.7%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Israel 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.