Statizoid

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

Lithuania: Registering property: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

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

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

00.20.40.60.812015201720192015: 0 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

In 2019, registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Lithuania stood at 0 DB17-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.

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

Countries ranked near Lithuania

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

See the full ranking of 186 places →

More private sector data for Lithuania

All data for Lithuania →

Frequently asked questions

What is registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Lithuania?
Registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Lithuania 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 Lithuania?
The highest recorded value was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
What is the lowest registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0) recorded in Lithuania?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
How does Lithuania rank for registering property: equal access to property rights index (-2-0)?
Lithuania ranks 1st out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Lithuania 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 Lithuania. Statizoid. Retrieved 19 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/registering-property-equal-access-to-property-rights-index-2-0-db17-20-methodology/lithuania/

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/lithuania/">Registering property: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) in Lithuania</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.