Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) in Palestine, State of
Palestine, State of: 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 Palestine, State of, 2004–2013
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB05-14 methodology.
Analysis
In 2013, getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Palestine, State of stood at 5 DB05-14 methodology. That is the highest value across all 10 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is up 25.0% on the previous year and up 66.7% over five years.
Over the whole period, getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Palestine, State of peaked at 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2013 and was at its lowest, 0 DB05-14 methodology, in 2004.
Palestine, State of 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 Palestine, State of, year by year
| Year | DB05-14 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 0 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2005 | 0 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2006 | 0 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2007 | 0 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2008 | 3 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2009 | 3 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 3 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 3 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +33.3% |
| 2013 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +25.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1 DB05-14 methodology | 0 DB05-14 methodology | 3 DB05-14 methodology | 6 |
| 2010s | 3.75 DB05-14 methodology | 3 DB05-14 methodology | 5 DB05-14 methodology | 4 |
Countries ranked near Palestine, State of
- 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 Hong Kong, China 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 Zambia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
More private sector data for Palestine, State of
- Food imports 30.9% (2023)
- Manufactures imports 45.9% (2023)
- Food exports 21.4% (2023)
- Manufactures exports 63.3% (2023)
- Commercial service exports (current US$), per capita 103.2 current US$ per person (2025)
- Commercial service exports 558.70 million current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.0325 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Transport services 47.1% (2025)
- Commercial service imports (current US$), per capita 227.75 current US$ per person (2025)
- Computer, communications and other services 8.6% (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Palestine, State of?
- Getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Palestine, State of 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 Palestine, State of?
- 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 Palestine, State of?
- The lowest recorded value was 0 DB05-14 methodology in 2004.
- How does Palestine, State of rank for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6)?
- Palestine, State of ranks 31st out of 184 countries with data for 2013.
- Where does this Palestine, State of 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.