Statizoid

Registering property: Land dispute resolution index (0-8) (DB16-20 methodology) by country

The land dispute resolution index measures the accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms and the extent of liability for entities or agents recording land transactions. It has eight components: (i) whether the law requires that all property sale transactions be regisΒ­tered at the immovable property registry...

Countries reporting
186
Highest
8 DB16-20 methodology
Albania
Lowest
0.5 DB16-20 methodology
Bahamas
Median
5 DB16-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
930

What the numbers show

Registering property: Land dispute resolution index (0-8) (DB16-20 methodology) is currently reported for 186 countries. The highest value is 8 DB16-20 methodology in Albania; the lowest is 0.5 DB16-20 methodology in Bahamas.

The median across all reporting countries is 5 DB16-20 methodology, and the mean is 5.13 DB16-20 methodology.

The gap between the highest and lowest reporting country is a factor of about 16.

Registering property: Land dispute resolution index (0-8): full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 Albania 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
1 Belarus 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
1 China (People's Republic of) 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
1 United Kingdom 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
1 Lithuania 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
1 Mongolia 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
1 Russia 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
1 Rwanda 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
1 Taiwan 8 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
10 Antigua and Barbuda 7.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
10 Azerbaijan 7.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
10 Estonia 7.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
10 Finland 7.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
10 Indonesia 7.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
10 Iceland 7.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
10 Kazakhstan 7.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
10 Netherlands 7.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
10 Ukraine 7.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
19 Armenia 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
19 Georgia 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
19 Ireland 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
19 Korea 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
19 North Macedonia 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
19 Malaysia 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
19 Singapore 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
19 Sweden 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
19 TΓΌrkiye 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
19 Uzbekistan 7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
29 United Arab Emirates 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
29 Burkina Faso 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
29 Denmark 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
29 Spain 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
29 Hungary 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
29 Saint Kitts and Nevis 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
29 Saint Lucia 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
29 Qatar 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
29 Saudi Arabia 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
29 Eswatini 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
29 Thailand 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
29 Tajikistan 6.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Belgium 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Bahrain 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Bhutan 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Switzerland 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Cote d'Ivoire 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Germany 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Ecuador 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Fiji 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 France 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
41 Honduras 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Croatia 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Israel 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
41 Italy 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Jordan 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Kyrgyzstan 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
41 Kiribati 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Luxembourg 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Latvia 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
41 New Zealand 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Paraguay 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Romania 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Senegal 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 San Marino 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Slovak Republic 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Seychelles 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Tonga 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
41 Uruguay 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Australia 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Canada 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Chile 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Cyprus 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Dominican Republic 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Hong Kong 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Japan 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Morocco 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Moldova 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Mauritius 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
68 Norway 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Oman 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Poland 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
68 Portugal 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Solomon Islands 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Somalia 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Slovenia 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Zambia 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
68 Zimbabwe 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
89 Austria 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Bulgaria 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Democratic Republic of Congo 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Colombia 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Comoros 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Cape Verde 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Costa Rica 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Czechia 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Algeria 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Equatorial Guinea 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Guatemala 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Iran 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Iraq 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Kenya 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Cambodia 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Kuwait 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
89 Lebanon 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Mexico 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Malawi 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Panama 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Peru 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Palau 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 El Salvador 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Serbia 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 South Sudan 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Chad 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Tunisia 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Tanzania 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Vietnam 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
89 Samoa 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Benin 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
119 Brazil 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
119 Barbados 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Eritrea 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Gabon 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Guinea 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Grenada 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Maldives 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Mali 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Namibia 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Philippines 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
119 Togo 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
119 South Africa 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Angola 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Argentina 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Brunei 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Egypt 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Ethiopia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Ghana 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Laos 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Lesotho 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
132 Mozambique 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Mauritania 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Suriname 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Syria 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Uganda 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Venezuela 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Vanuatu 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
132 Kosovo 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Burundi 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Belize 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Bolivia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Cameroon 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Congo 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Guyana 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Haiti 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 India 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Jamaica 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Myanmar 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Montenegro 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Nicaragua 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Pakistan 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Puerto Rico 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Palestine 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Sierra Leone 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Trinidad and Tobago 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
148 Yemen 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
166 United States 3.4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Afghanistan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Bangladesh 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Botswana 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Central African Republic 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Dominica 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Guinea-Bissau 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Greece 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Madagascar 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Malta 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
167 Sao Tome and Principe 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
177 Djibouti 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
177 Gambia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
177 Liberia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
177 Niger 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
177 Nigeria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
177 Nepal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
177 Sudan 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
184 Papua New Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
185 Sri Lanka 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
186 Bahamas 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Registering property: Land dispute resolution index (0-8) by country. Statizoid. Retrieved 17 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/registering-property-land-dispute-resolution-index-0-8-db16-20-methodology/

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-land-dispute-resolution-index-0-8-db16-20-methodology/">Registering property: Land dispute resolution index (0-8) by country</a> β€” Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Registering property: Land dispute resolution index (0-8) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
186 places, 930 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The land dispute resolution index measures the accessibility of conflict resolution mechanisms and the extent of liability for entities or agents recording land transactions. It has eight components: (i) whether the law requires that all property sale transactions be regisΒ­tered at the immovable property registry to make them opposable to third parties; (ii) whether the formal system of immovable property registration is subject to a guarantee; (iii) whether there is a specific, out-of-court compensation mechanism to cover for losses incurred by parties who engaged in good faith in a propΒ­erty transaction based on erroneous information certified by the immovΒ­able property registry; (iv) whether the legal system requires verification of the legal validity of the documents (such as the sales, transfer or conveyance deed) necessary for a property transaction; (v) whether the legal system requires verification of the identity of the parties to a property transaction; (vi) whether there is a national database to verify the accuracy of identity documents; (vii) how much time it takes to obtain a decision from a court of first instance (without an appeal) in a standard land dispute between two local busiΒ­nesses over tenure rights worth 50 times income per capita and located in the largest business city; and (viii) whether there are publicly availΒ­able statistics on the number of land disputes in the first instance. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.