Statizoid

Registering property: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Ecuador

Ecuador: Registering property: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2019. ◆ Volatile

Latest (2019)
0 DB17-20 methodology
World rank
1st
of 186 countries
All-time high
0 DB17-20 methodology
in 2016
All-time low
-1 DB17-20 methodology
in 2015
Years of data
5
2015–2019

Registering property: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Ecuador, 2015–2019

-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2-02015201720192015: -1 DB17-20 methodology2016: 0 DB17-20 methodology2017: 0 DB17-20 methodology2018: 0 DB17-20 methodology2019: 0 DB17-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB17-20 methodology.

Analysis

Ecuador recorded 0 DB17-20 methodology for registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.

That represents a change of up 100.0% over five years.

Ecuador ranks 1st of 186 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.

Countries ranked near Ecuador

  1. 1 China (People’s Republic of) 0 DB17-20 methodology
  2. 1 Bangladesh 0 DB17-20 methodology
  3. 1 India 0 DB17-20 methodology
  4. 1 Indonesia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  5. 1 Nigeria 0 DB17-20 methodology
  6. 1 Pakistan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  7. 1 United States 0 DB17-20 methodology
  8. 1 Mexico 0 DB17-20 methodology
  9. 1 Russia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  10. 1 Japan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  11. 1 Brazil 0 DB17-20 methodology
  12. 1 Afghanistan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  13. 1 Albania 0 DB17-20 methodology
  14. 1 Algeria 0 DB17-20 methodology
  15. 1 Angola 0 DB17-20 methodology
  16. 1 Antigua and Barbuda 0 DB17-20 methodology
  17. 1 Argentina 0 DB17-20 methodology
  18. 1 Armenia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  19. 1 Australia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  20. 1 Austria 0 DB17-20 methodology
  21. 1 Azerbaijan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  22. 1 Bahamas 0 DB17-20 methodology
  23. 1 Bahrain 0 DB17-20 methodology
  24. 1 Barbados 0 DB17-20 methodology
  25. 1 Belarus 0 DB17-20 methodology
  26. 1 Belgium 0 DB17-20 methodology
  27. 1 Belize 0 DB17-20 methodology
  28. 1 Benin 0 DB17-20 methodology
  29. 1 Bhutan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  30. 1 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 0 DB17-20 methodology
  31. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 DB17-20 methodology
  32. 1 Botswana 0 DB17-20 methodology
  33. 1 Brunei Darussalam 0 DB17-20 methodology
  34. 1 Bulgaria 0 DB17-20 methodology
  35. 1 Burkina Faso 0 DB17-20 methodology
  36. 1 Burundi 0 DB17-20 methodology
  37. 1 Cape Verde 0 DB17-20 methodology
  38. 1 Cambodia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  39. 1 Canada 0 DB17-20 methodology
  40. 1 Central African Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology
  41. 1 Colombia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  42. 1 Comoros 0 DB17-20 methodology
  43. 1 Costa Rica 0 DB17-20 methodology
  44. 1 Croatia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  45. 1 Cyprus 0 DB17-20 methodology
  46. 1 Czechia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  47. 1 Denmark 0 DB17-20 methodology
  48. 1 Djibouti 0 DB17-20 methodology
  49. 1 Dominica 0 DB17-20 methodology
  50. 1 Dominican Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology
  51. 1 Egypt 0 DB17-20 methodology
  52. 1 El Salvador 0 DB17-20 methodology
  53. 1 Eritrea 0 DB17-20 methodology
  54. 1 Estonia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  55. 1 Eswatini 0 DB17-20 methodology
  56. 1 Ethiopia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  57. 1 Fiji 0 DB17-20 methodology
  58. 1 Finland 0 DB17-20 methodology
  59. 1 France 0 DB17-20 methodology
  60. 1 Gambia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  61. 1 Georgia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  62. 1 Germany 0 DB17-20 methodology
  63. 1 Ghana 0 DB17-20 methodology
  64. 1 Greece 0 DB17-20 methodology
  65. 1 Grenada 0 DB17-20 methodology
  66. 1 Guatemala 0 DB17-20 methodology
  67. 1 Guinea 0 DB17-20 methodology
  68. 1 Guyana 0 DB17-20 methodology
  69. 1 Honduras 0 DB17-20 methodology
  70. 1 Hong Kong (China) 0 DB17-20 methodology
  71. 1 Hungary 0 DB17-20 methodology
  72. 1 Iceland 0 DB17-20 methodology
  73. 1 Iran 0 DB17-20 methodology
  74. 1 Iraq 0 DB17-20 methodology
  75. 1 Ireland 0 DB17-20 methodology
  76. 1 Israel 0 DB17-20 methodology
  77. 1 Italy 0 DB17-20 methodology
  78. 1 Jamaica 0 DB17-20 methodology
  79. 1 Jordan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  80. 1 Kazakhstan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  81. 1 Kenya 0 DB17-20 methodology
  82. 1 Korea 0 DB17-20 methodology
  83. 1 Kosovo 0 DB17-20 methodology
  84. 1 Kuwait 0 DB17-20 methodology
  85. 1 Kyrgyzstan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  86. 1 Lao People's Democratic Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology
  87. 1 Latvia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  88. 1 Lebanon 0 DB17-20 methodology
  89. 1 Lesotho 0 DB17-20 methodology
  90. 1 Liberia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  91. 1 Lithuania 0 DB17-20 methodology
  92. 1 Luxembourg 0 DB17-20 methodology
  93. 1 Madagascar 0 DB17-20 methodology
  94. 1 Malawi 0 DB17-20 methodology
  95. 1 Malaysia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  96. 1 Maldives 0 DB17-20 methodology
  97. 1 Mali 0 DB17-20 methodology
  98. 1 Malta 0 DB17-20 methodology
  99. 1 Mauritius 0 DB17-20 methodology
  100. 1 Moldova 0 DB17-20 methodology
  101. 1 Mongolia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  102. 1 Montenegro 0 DB17-20 methodology
  103. 1 Morocco 0 DB17-20 methodology
  104. 1 Mozambique 0 DB17-20 methodology
  105. 1 Myanmar 0 DB17-20 methodology
  106. 1 Namibia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  107. 1 Nepal 0 DB17-20 methodology
  108. 1 Netherlands 0 DB17-20 methodology
  109. 1 New Zealand 0 DB17-20 methodology
  110. 1 Nicaragua 0 DB17-20 methodology
  111. 1 Niger 0 DB17-20 methodology
  112. 1 North Macedonia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  113. 1 Norway 0 DB17-20 methodology
  114. 1 Oman 0 DB17-20 methodology
  115. 1 Palau 0 DB17-20 methodology
  116. 1 Panama 0 DB17-20 methodology
  117. 1 Papua New Guinea 0 DB17-20 methodology
  118. 1 Paraguay 0 DB17-20 methodology
  119. 1 Peru 0 DB17-20 methodology
  120. 1 Poland 0 DB17-20 methodology
  121. 1 Portugal 0 DB17-20 methodology
  122. 1 Puerto Rico 0 DB17-20 methodology
  123. 1 Qatar 0 DB17-20 methodology
  124. 1 Romania 0 DB17-20 methodology
  125. 1 Rwanda 0 DB17-20 methodology
  126. 1 Samoa 0 DB17-20 methodology
  127. 1 San Marino 0 DB17-20 methodology
  128. 1 Sao Tome and Principe 0 DB17-20 methodology
  129. 1 Saudi Arabia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  130. 1 Senegal 0 DB17-20 methodology
  131. 1 Serbia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  132. 1 Seychelles 0 DB17-20 methodology
  133. 1 Sierra Leone 0 DB17-20 methodology
  134. 1 Singapore 0 DB17-20 methodology
  135. 1 Slovak Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology
  136. 1 Slovenia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  137. 1 Solomon Islands 0 DB17-20 methodology
  138. 1 Somalia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  139. 1 South Africa 0 DB17-20 methodology
  140. 1 South Sudan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  141. 1 Spain 0 DB17-20 methodology
  142. 1 Sri Lanka 0 DB17-20 methodology
  143. 1 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0 DB17-20 methodology
  144. 1 Saint Lucia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  145. 1 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 DB17-20 methodology
  146. 1 Sudan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  147. 1 Suriname 0 DB17-20 methodology
  148. 1 Sweden 0 DB17-20 methodology
  149. 1 Switzerland 0 DB17-20 methodology
  150. 1 Syrian Arab Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology
  151. 1 Chinese Taipei 0 DB17-20 methodology
  152. 1 Tajikistan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  153. 1 Tanzania, United Republic of 0 DB17-20 methodology
  154. 1 Thailand 0 DB17-20 methodology
  155. 1 Togo 0 DB17-20 methodology
  156. 1 Trinidad and Tobago 0 DB17-20 methodology
  157. 1 Tunisia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  158. 1 Türkiye 0 DB17-20 methodology
  159. 1 Uganda 0 DB17-20 methodology
  160. 1 Ukraine 0 DB17-20 methodology
  161. 1 United Arab Emirates 0 DB17-20 methodology
  162. 1 United Kingdom 0 DB17-20 methodology
  163. 1 Uruguay 0 DB17-20 methodology
  164. 1 Uzbekistan 0 DB17-20 methodology
  165. 1 Vanuatu 0 DB17-20 methodology
  166. 1 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 0 DB17-20 methodology
  167. 1 Viet Nam 0 DB17-20 methodology
  168. 1 Palestine, State of 0 DB17-20 methodology
  169. 1 Yemen 0 DB17-20 methodology
  170. 1 Zambia 0 DB17-20 methodology
  171. 1 Zimbabwe 0 DB17-20 methodology

See the full ranking of 186 places →

More private sector data for Ecuador

All data for Ecuador →

Frequently asked questions

What is registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Ecuador?
Registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Ecuador was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0) recorded in Ecuador?
The highest recorded value was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2016.
What is the lowest registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0) recorded in Ecuador?
The lowest recorded value was -1 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
How does Ecuador rank for registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0)?
Ecuador ranks 1st out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Ecuador data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Registering property: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) (DB17-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 5 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Registering property: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Ecuador. Statizoid. Retrieved 22 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/registering-property-equal-access-to-property-rights-index-2-0-db17-20-methodology/ecuador/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/registering-property-equal-access-to-property-rights-index-2-0-db17-20-methodology/ecuador/">Registering property: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Ecuador</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Registering property: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) (DB17-20 methodology)
Unit
DB17-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
186 places, 930 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The equal access to property rights index evaluates whether married or unmarried women have equal access to property rights. It has two components: (i) whether unmarried men and unmar­ried women have equal ownership rights to property; and (ii) whether married men and married women have equal ownership rights to property. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.