Statizoid

Registering property: Transparency of information index (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology) by country

The transparency of information index evaluates whether the land administration system makes land-related information publicly available. It has ten components: (i) whether information on land ownership is made publicly available; (ii) whether the list of documents required for completing the registraΒ­tion of...

Countries reporting
174
Highest
6 DB16-20 methodology
United Kingdom
Lowest
0.5 DB16-20 methodology
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Median
3 DB16-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
930

What the numbers show

Registering property: Transparency of information index (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology) is currently reported for 174 countries. The highest value is 6 DB16-20 methodology in United Kingdom; the lowest is 0.5 DB16-20 methodology in Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The median across all reporting countries is 3 DB16-20 methodology, and the mean is 3.11 DB16-20 methodology.

The gap between the highest and lowest reporting country is a factor of about 12.

Registering property: Transparency of information index (0-6): full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 United Kingdom 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
1 Hong Kong (China) 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
1 Mauritius 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
1 Netherlands 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
1 Peru 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
1 Romania 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
1 Russia 6 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
8 Jamaica 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
8 Singapore 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
8 Slovak Republic 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
11 Brazil 5.2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
12 Seychelles 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Armenia 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Bulgaria 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Belarus 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Ecuador 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Georgia 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Guatemala 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Ireland 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Israel 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Italy 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Korea 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Lithuania 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Latvia 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Republic of Moldova 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Myanmar 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Malaysia 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
13 New Zealand 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Portugal 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Rwanda 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Serbia 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Suriname 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Sweden 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Thailand 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 Tunisia 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
13 Vanuatu 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
13 TaΓ―wan 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
38 Pakistan 4.2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 Burkina Faso 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 Brunei Darussalam 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 Democratic Republic of the Congo 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
39 Cabo Verde 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 Czechia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
39 Estonia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
39 Iceland 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
39 Japan 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 Kyrgyzstan 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
39 Madagascar 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
39 North Macedonia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 Senegal 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 El Salvador 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 San Marino 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
39 Eswatini 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 Togo 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 TΓΌrkiye 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
39 South Africa 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
58 China 3.95 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
59 Mexico 3.92 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Benin 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
60 Bangladesh 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
60 Bahrain 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
60 Chile 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Colombia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Costa Rica 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Croatia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Hungary 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Jordan 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Kazakhstan 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
60 Luxembourg 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Malta 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Namibia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
60 Norway 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Qatar 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
60 Slovenia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
60 Uganda 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
60 Ukraine 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
60 Uruguay 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
60 Zimbabwe 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
80 India 3.44 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
81 United States 3.2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Australia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
82 Austria 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Azerbaijan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Belgium 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
82 Canada 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Denmark 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Dominican Republic 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Egypt 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Spain 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Finland 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 France 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Ghana 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Guyana 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
82 Indonesia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
82 Kenya 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
82 Lebanon 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Lesotho 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
82 Montenegro 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Panama 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Philippines 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
82 Puerto Rico 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
82 Uzbekistan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
82 Viet Nam 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 Albania 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 United Arab Emirates 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
105 Argentina 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
105 Bahamas 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 Belize 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 Botswana 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 Switzerland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 Cameroon 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 Cyprus 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 Honduras 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
105 Kuwait 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
105 Morocco 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
105 Mongolia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
105 Nepal 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
105 Oman 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
105 Papua New Guinea 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
105 Poland 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
105 Saudi Arabia 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
105 Syrian Arab Republic 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 United Republic of Tanzania 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
105 Yemen 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
126 Angola 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
126 Barbados 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
126 Bhutan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
126 CΓ΄te d'Ivoire 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
126 Germany 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
126 Guinea 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
126 Gambia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
126 Saint Lucia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
126 Mauritania 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
126 Nicaragua 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
126 Palau 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
126 Sierra Leone 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
138 Antigua and Barbuda 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Djibouti 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” volatile
138 Dominica 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Algeria 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
138 Ethiopia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” volatile
138 Fiji 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Gabon 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” volatile
138 Greece 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Grenada 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Sri Lanka 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Mali 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Mozambique 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
138 Malawi 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Niger 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Solomon Islands 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Sao Tome and Principe 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Chad 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Tonga 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” falling
138 Trinidad and Tobago 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Samoa 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Kosovo 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
138 Zambia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
164 Nigeria 1.39 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
165 Congo 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
165 Guinea-Bissau 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
165 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
165 Liberia 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
165 Paraguay 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
165 State of Palestine 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” rising
165 Tajikistan 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
172 Iraq 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
172 Cambodia 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat
172 Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 β€” flat

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Registering property: Transparency of information index (0-6) by country. Statizoid. Retrieved 20 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/registering-property-transparency-of-information-index-0-6-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-transparency-of-information-index-0-6-db16-20-methodology/">Registering property: Transparency of information index (0-6) by country</a> β€” Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Registering property: Transparency of information index (0-6) (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 transparency of information index evaluates whether the land administration system makes land-related information publicly available. It has ten components: (i) whether information on land ownership is made publicly available; (ii) whether the list of documents required for completing the registraΒ­tion of property transactions is made publicly available; (iii) whether the fee schedule for completing the registration of propΒ­erty transactions is made publicly available; (iv) whether the agency in charge of immovable property registration commits to a specific time frame for delivering a legally binding document that proves property ownership; (v) whether there is a specific and independent mechanism for filing complaints about a problem that occurred at the agency in charge of immovable property registration; (vi) whether there are publicly available official statistics tracking the number of transactions at the immovable property registration agency; (vii) whether maps of land plots are made publicly available; (viii) whether the fee schedule for accessing maps is made publicly available; and (ix) whether the mapping agency commits to a specific time frame for delivering an updated map; and (x) whether there is a specific and independent mechanism for filing complaints about a problem that occurred at the mapping agency. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.