Developmentrelevance: Efficient contract enforcement is essential to economic development and sustained growth. Economic and social progress cannot be achieved without respect for the rule of law and effective protection of rights, both of which require a well-functioning judiciary that resolves cases in a reasonable time and is predictable and accessible to the public. Economies with a more efficient judiciary, in which courts can effectively enforce contractual obligations, have more developed credit markets and a higher level of development overall. A stronger judiciary is also associated with more rapid growth of small firms. Overall, enhancing the efficiency of the judicial system can improve the business climate, foster innovation, attract foreign direct investment and secure tax revenues.

IndicatorName: Alternative dispute resolution (0-3) (DB17-20 methodology)

Limitationsandexceptions: The Doing Business methodology has five limitations that should be considered when interpreting the data. First, for most economies the collected data refer to businesses in the largest business city and may not be representative of regulation in other parts of the economy. Second, the data often focus on a specific business form—generally a limited liability company (or its legal equivalent) of a specified size—and may not be representative of the regulation on other businesses. Third, transactions described in a standardized case scenario refer to a specific set of issues and may not represent the full set of issues that a business encounters. Fourth, the measures of time involve an element of judgment by the expert respondents. When sources indicate different estimates, the time indicators reported in Doing Business represent the median values of several responses given under the assumptions of the standardized case. Finally, the methodology assumes that a business has full information on what is required and does not waste time when completing procedures. In practice, completing a procedure may take longer if the business lacks information or is unable to follow up promptly. Alternatively, the business may choose to disregard some burdensome procedures. For both reasons the time delays reported in Doing Business would differ from the recollection of entrepreneurs reported in the World Bank Group Enterprise questionnaires or other firm-level questionnaires.

Longdefinition: The alternative dispute resolution evaluates two aspects: (i) whether domestic commercial arbitration is regulated by law, all disputes can be submitted to arbitration and valid arbitration clauses are usually enforced by courts; and (ii) whether voluntary mediation and/or conciliation are a recognized way of resolving commercial disputes, they are regulated by law and there are financial incentives for parties to attempt mediation of conciliation. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.

Periodicity: Annual

Referenceperiod: Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year.

Source: World Bank Group, Doing Business project (http://www.doingbusiness.org/).

Statisticalconceptandmethodology:
Data are collected by the World Bank Group with a standardized questionnaire that uses a simple business case to ensure comparability across economies and over time—with assumptions about the legal form of the business, its size, its location and nature of its operation. Questionnaires are administered to more than 13,800 local experts, including lawyers, business consultants, accountants, freight forwarders, government officials and other professionals routinely administering or advising on legal and regulatory requirements.

The Doing Business data are based on a detailed reading of domestic laws, regulations and administrative requirements as well as their implementation in practice as experienced by private firms. The report covers 190 economies—including some of the smallest and poorest economies, for which little or no data are available from other sources. The data are collected through several rounds of communication with expert respondents (both private sector practitioners and government officials), through responses to questionnaires, conference calls, written correspondence and visits by the team. Doing Business relies on four main sources of information: the relevant laws and regulations, Doing Business respondents, the governments of the economies covered and the World Bank Group regional staff.

Topic: Enforcing contracts


IndicatorName: Attorney fees (% of claim)

Longdefinition: The attorney fees are the fees that plaintiff must advance to a local attorney in the standardized case, regardless of final reimbursement.


IndicatorName: Cost (% of claim)

Longdefinition: The cost to enforce contracts is recorded as a percentage of the claim value, assumed to be equivalent to 200% of income per capita or $5,000, whichever is greater. Three types of costs are recorded: average attorney fees, court costs and enforcement costs. Bribes are not taken into account.


IndicatorName: Score-Cost (% of claim)

Longdefinition: The score for cost to enforce contracts benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Case management (0-6) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The case management evaluates six aspects of the court case management system: (i) whether there are regulations setting time standards for key court events; (ii) whether there are regulations on adjournments and continuances; (iii) whether performance measurement reports are publicly available; (iv) whether a pretrial conference is available; (v) whether an electronic case management system for judges is available; and (vi) whether an electronic case management system for lawyers is available. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The court automation evaluates four aspects: (i) whether the initial complaint can be filed electronically; (ii) whether the initial complaint can be served electronically; (iii) whether court fees can be paid electronically; and (iv) whether judgments rendered in commercial matters are made available to the public. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Court fees (% of claim)

Longdefinition: The court fees include all costs that plaintiff must advance to the court, regardless of the final cost borne by plaintiff. Court costs include the fees that the parties must pay to obtain an expert opinion, regardless of whether they are paid to the court or to the expert directly.


IndicatorName: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The court structure and proceedings evaluates five aspects of the court system: (i) whether a specialized commercial court, division or section is available; (ii) whether a small claims court and/or simplified procedure for small claims is available; (iii) whether pretrial attachment of defendant's movable assets is available; (iv) whether new cases are assigned randomly and through an automated system to judges; and (v) whether a woman’s testimony in court carries the same evidentiary weight as that of a man's. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Enforcing contracts (DB04-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for enforcing contracts is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time and cost for resolving a commercial dispute through a local first-instance court. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB04-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Enforcing contracts (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for enforcing contracts is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the time and cost for resolving a commercial dispute through a local first-instance court, as well as the quality of judicial processes that promotes quality and efficiency in the court system. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Enforcement fees (% of claim)

Longdefinition: The enforcement fees are all costs that plaintiff must advance to enforce the judgment through a public sale of defendant’s movable assets, regardless of the final cost borne by plaintiff.


IndicatorName: Enforcement of judgment (days)

Longdefinition: The time for enforcement of judgment captures the time from the moment the time to appeal has elapsed until the money is recovered by the winning party.


IndicatorName: Filing and service (days)

Longdefinition: The time for filing and service captures the time from the moment plaintiff decides to sue until defendant is served.


IndicatorName: Procedures (number) (DB04-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The procedures to enforce contracts records the list of procedural steps compiled for each economy that traces the chronology of a commercial dispute before the relevant court. A procedure is defined as any interaction, required by law or commonly carried out in practice, between the parties or between them and the judge or court officer. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB04-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Procedures (number) (DB04-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for procedures to enforce contracts benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB04-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Quality of judicial processes index (0-18) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for quality of judicial processes index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Quality of judicial processes index (0-18) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The quality of judicial processes index is the sum of the court structure and proceedings, case management, court automation and alternative dispute resolution. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Rank-Enforcing contracts

Longdefinition: The ranking of economies on the ease of enforcing contracts is determined by sorting their scores for enforcing contracts.

Referenceperiod: Data are presented for the survey year instead of publication year. The country ranking is only available for the latest year.


IndicatorName: Trial and judgment (days)

Longdefinition: The time for trial and judgment captures the time from the moment defendant is served until the time to appeal has elapsed.


Developmentrelevance: Good rules create an environment where new entrants with drive and innovative ideas can get started in business and where productive firms can invest, expand and create new jobs. The role of government policy in the daily operations of small and medium-size domestic firms is a central focus of the Doing Business data. The objective is to encourage regulation that is efficient, transparent and easy to implement so that businesses can thrive and promote economic freedom and social progress. Doing Business data focus on the 10 areas of regulation affecting small and medium-size domestic firms in the largest business city of an economy. The project uses standardized case studies to provide objective, quantitative measures that can be compared across 190 economies.

IndicatorName: Ease of doing business score (DB10-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The ease of doing business score is the simple average of the scores for each of the Doing Business topics: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting minority investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts and resolving insolvency. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB10-14 studies for topics that underwent methodology updates.

Topic: Ease of doing business


IndicatorName: Ease of doing business score (DB15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The ease of doing business score is the simple average of the scores for each of the Doing Business topics: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting minority investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts and resolving insolvency. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB15 studies for topics that underwent methodology updates.


IndicatorName: Ease of doing business score (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The ease of doing business score is the simple average of the scores for each of the Doing Business topics: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting minority investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts and resolving insolvency. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies for topics that underwent methodology updates.


IndicatorName: Ease of Doing Business rank

Longdefinition: The ease of doing business ranking ranges from 1 to 190. The ranking of economies is determined by sorting the aggregate ease of doing business scores.


Developmentrelevance: Good construction regulation matters for public safety since sound regulation of construction helps protect the public from faulty building practices. Efficient construction permitting and inspection systems can indeed strengthen property rights and contribute to the process of capital formation. If procedures are too complicated or too costly, builders are more likely to proceed without a permit, especially in developing economies. And because the construction permitting process generally involves licensing requirements from several different agencies, those seeking permits are exposed to different bureaucracies, which creates opportunities for rent-seeking. Overly complicated or costly construction rules can also increase opportunities for corruption.

IndicatorName: Liability and insurance regimes index (0-2) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The liability and insurance regimes index evaluates the stringency of latent defect liability and insurance regimes. It has two components: (i) whether any parties involved in the construction process are held legally liable for latent defects such as structural flaws or problems in the building once it is in use; (ii) whether any party involved in the construction process is legally required to obtain a latent defect liability or decennial (10 years) liability insurance policy to cover possible structural flaws or problems in the building once it is in use. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.

Topic: Dealing with construction permits


IndicatorName: Professional certifications index (0-4) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The professional certifications index evaluates professional certi?cation requirements. It has two components: (i) the qualification requirements of the professional responsible for verifying that the architectural plans or drawings are in compliance with the building regulations; and (ii) the qualification requirements of the professional who conducts the technical inspections during construction. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Building quality control index (0-15) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the building quality control index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Cost (% of Warehouse value)

Longdefinition: The cost records all official costs associated with completing the procedures to legally build a warehouse, including the costs associated with obtaining land use approvals and preconstruction design clearances; receiving inspections before, during and after construction; obtaining utility connections; and registering the warehouse at the property registry. It is calculated as a percentage of the warehouse value. Nonrecurring taxes required for the completion of the warehouse project are also recorded. Sales taxes (such as value added tax) or capital gains taxes are not recorded. Nor are deposits that must be paid up front and are later refunded.


IndicatorName: Score-Cost (% of Warehouse value)

Longdefinition: The score for cost benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Score-Dealing with construction permits (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for dealing with construction permits is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time, cost to deal with construction permits, as well as the building quality control index that evaluate the quality of building regulations, the strength of quality control and safety mechanisms, liability and insurance regimes and professional certification requirements. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Dealing with construction permits (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for dealing with construction permits is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time, cost to deal with construction permits, as well as the building quality control index that evaluate the quality of building regulations, the strength of quality control and safety mechanisms, liability and insurance regimes and professional certification requirements. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Procedures (number)

Longdefinition: The number of procedures records all the procedures required in practice for businesses to obtain a new electrical connection. A procedure is defined as any interaction of the company’s employees or its main electrician or electrical engineer with external parties, such as the electricity distribution utility, electricity supply utilities, government agencies, electrical contractors and firms. Interactions between company employees and steps related to the internal electrical wiring, such as the design and execution of the internal electrical installation plans, are not counted as procedures. However, internal wiring inspections and certifications that are prerequisites to obtain a new connection are counted as procedures.

Topic: Registering property


Developmentrelevance: Infrastructure services are a major concern for businesses around the world. Getting electricity services in particular is known to be a substantial obstacle to entrepreneurial activity. Power outages can  severely hamper business activity as well as the economy as a whole. For example, power outages can lead to sale losses and decreases in productivity. Research also shows that capital tends to go to economies that can offer a reliable and competitively priced supply of electricity. That is why, by providing insight into the complex regulatory environment concerning electricity connections and measuring how regulations and institutions affect a firm's ability to get a new connection, Doing Business can thus help identify bottlenecks and prompt policy makers to introduce more conducive regulations.

IndicatorName: Score-Procedures (number)

Longdefinition: The score for the number of procedures benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Quality of building regulations index (0-2) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The quality of building regulations index evaluates the accessibility and transparency of building regulations. It has two components: (i) whether building regulations are easily accessible; and (ii) whether the requirements for obtaining a building permit are clearly specified. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Quality control after construction index (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The quality control after construction index evaluates quality control after the construction process. It has two components: (i) whether a final inspection is mandated by law to verify that the building was built in accordance with the approved plans and existing building regulations; and (ii) whether the final inspection is implemented in practice. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Quality control before construction index (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The quality control before construction index evaluates quality control in the review of the building plans. The index measures whether by law, a licensed architect or engineer is part of the committee or team that reviews and approves building permit applications and whether that person has the authority to refuse an application if the plans are not in conformity with regulations. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Quality control during construction index (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The quality control during construction index evaluates quality control during the construction process. It has two components: (i) whether inspections are mandated by law during the construction process; (ii) whether inspections during construction are implemented in practice. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Rank-Dealing with construction permits

Longdefinition: The ranking of economies on the ease of dealing with construction permits is determined by sorting their scores for dealing with construction permits.


IndicatorName: Time (days)

Longdefinition: The time to enforce contracts is recorded in calendar days, counted from the moment plaintiff decides to file the lawsuit in court until payment. The average duration of the following three different stages of dispute resolution is recorded: (i) filing and service, (ii) trial and judgment, and (iii) enforcement.

Topic: Getting electricity


IndicatorName: Score-Time (days)

Longdefinition: The score for time to enforce contracts benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


Developmentrelevance: The getting credit indicator set covers two aspects of access to finance—the strength of credit reporting systems and the effectiveness of collateral and bankruptcy laws in facilitating lending. These institutions and legal rights matter. The inability of lenders to accurately assess the creditworthiness of borrowers contributes to higher default rates and smaller loan portfolios. Lenders are also unwilling to provide credit if there is no guarantee that they will be able to enforce their rights and collect a debt or repossess collateral through a timely and inexpensive process.

IndicatorName: Getting Credit total score (DB05-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The total score for getting credit is the sum of the strength of legal rights index and the depth of credit information index, based on the methodology in the DB05-14 studies.

Topic: Getting credit


IndicatorName: Getting Credit total score (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The total score for getting credit is the sum of the strength of legal rights index and the depth of credit information index, based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Getting credit (DB05-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for getting credit benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator set. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB05-14 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Getting credit (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for getting credit benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator set. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Rank-Getting credit

Longdefinition: The ranking of economies on the ease of getting credit is determined by sorting their scores for getting credit.


Developmentrelevance: Globally, 27% of firms identify access to finance as a major constraint while around 70% of formal SMEs in developing economies are estimated to be either unserved or underserved by the formal financial sector. Credit bureaus and registries are essential elements of the financial infrastructure that helps to address the issue of access to financial services, including credit. By sharing credit information, they help to reduce information asymmetries, increase access to credit for small firms, lower interest rates, improve borrower discipline and support bank supervision and credit risk monitoring.

IndicatorName: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: 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.


IndicatorName: Score-Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the depth of credit information benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB05-14 studies.


IndicatorName: Depth of credit information index (0-8) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: 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 DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Depth of credit information index (0-8) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the depth of credit information benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


Developmentrelevance: Movable assets, rather than land or buildings, often comprise most of the capital stock of private firms; this is especially true for SMEs. In economies with a modern secured transactions system, these assets can easily be used as collateral. However, in many developing economies lenders may consider movable property to be an unacceptable form of collateral—either because the law does not recognize nonpossessory interests in movable collateral or because it does not provide sufficient protection for those lenders accepting it. This constraint matters: research shows that in developed economies borrowers with collateral obtain nine times as much credit as those without it. These borrowers also benefit from repayment periods 11 times as long and up to 50% lower interest rates.

IndicatorName: Score-Strength of legal rights index (0-10) (DB05-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the strength of legal rights benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB05-14 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Strength of legal rights index (0-12) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the strength of legal rights benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Strength of legal rights index (0-10) (DB05-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The strength of legal rights index measures whether certain features that facilitate lending exist within the applicable collateral and bankruptcy laws. The index ranges from 0 to 10 based on the methodology in the DB05-14 studies.


IndicatorName: Strength of legal rights index (0-12) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The strength of legal rights index measures whether certain features that facilitate lending exist within the applicable collateral and bankruptcy laws. The index ranges from 0 to 12 based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Credit bureau coverage (% of adults)

Longdefinition: The credit bureau coverage reports the number of individuals and firms listed in a credit bureau’s database as of January 1 with information on their borrowing history from the past five years, and the number of individuals and firms that have had no borrowing history in the past five years but for which a lender requested a credit report from the bureau in the previous calendar year. The number is expressed as a percentage of the adult population.


IndicatorName: Credit registry coverage (% of adults)

Longdefinition: The credit registry coverage reports the number of individuals and firms listed in a credit registry’s database as of January 1 with information on their borrowing history from the past five years, and the number of individuals and firms that have had no borrowing history in the past five years but for which a lender requested a credit report from the registry in the previous calendar year. The number is expressed as a percentage of the adult population.


IndicatorName: Building quality control index (0-15) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The building quality control index is the sum of the following six indices: quality of building regulations, quality control before construction, quality control during construction, quality control after construction, liability and insurance regimes and professional certifications. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Getting electricity (DB10-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for getting electricity is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time, cost for a business to obtain a permanent electricity connection and supply for a standardized warehouse, as well as the reliability of supply and transparency of tariffs index. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB10-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Getting electricity (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for getting electricity is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time, cost for a business to obtain a permanent electricity connection and supply for a standardized warehouse, as well as the reliability of supply and transparency of tariffs index. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Cost (% of income per capita)

Longdefinition: The cost is the total median cost associated with completing the procedures to connect a warehouse to electricity. It is calculated as a percentage of income per capita. All the fees and costs associated with completing the procedures to connect a warehouse to electricity are recorded, including those related to obtaining clearances from government agencies, applying for the connection, receiving inspections of both the site and the internal wiring, purchasing material, getting the actual connection works and paying a security deposit. Bribes are not included.


IndicatorName: Score-Cost (% of income per capita)

Longdefinition: The score for cost benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Communication of tariffs and tariff changes (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The communication of tariffs and tariff changes index evaluates whether electricity tariffs are transparent. A score of 1 is assigned if effective tariffs are available online and customers are notified of a change in tariff a full billing cycle (that is, one month) ahead of time. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: Th financial deterrents index evaluates whether financial deterrents exist to limit outages. A score of 1 is assigned if the utility compensates customers when outages exceed a certain cap, if the utility is fined by the regulator when outages exceed a certain cap or if both these conditions are met. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Mechanisms for monitoring outages (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The mechanisms for monitoring outages index evaluates what tools are used by the distribution utility to monitor power outages. A score of 1 is assigned if the utility uses automated tools, such as an Outage/Incident Management System (OMS/IMS) or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Total duration and frequency of outages per customer a year (0-3) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The total duration and frequency of outages per customer a year index evaluates the quality of the power supply. If SAIDI and SAIFI are 12 (equivalent to an outage of one hour each month) or below, a score of 1 is assigned. If SAIDI and SAIFI are 4 (equivalent to an outage of one hour each quarter) or below, 1 additional point is assigned. If SAIDI and SAIFI are 1 (equivalent to an outage of one hour per year) or below, 1 more point is assigned. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Minimum outage time (in minutes)  (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The minimum outage time is the minimum time, in minutes, considered for the calculation of the SAIDI and SAIFI indices. If the minimum outage time exceeds 5 minutes, an economy is not eligible to obtain a score on the Reliability of supply and transparency of tariff index component. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Price of electricity (US cents per kWh) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The price of electricity is measured in U.S. cents per kWh. A monthly electricity consumption is assumed, for which a bill is then computed for a warehouse based in the largest business city of the economy for the month of March. The bill is then expressed back as a unit of kWh. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The regulatory monitoring index evaluates whether a regulator—that is, an entity separate from the utility—monitors the utility’s performance on reliability of supply. A score of 1 is assigned if the regulator performs periodic or real-time reviews. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Mechanisms for restoring service (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The mechanisms for restoring service index evaluates what tools are used by the distribution utility to restore power supply. A score of 1 is assigned if the utility uses automated tools, such as an OMS/IMS or SCADA system. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Reliability of supply and transparency of tariff index (0-8) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The reliability of supply and transparency of tariff index is calculated on the basis of the following six components: (i) duration and frequency of power outages, (ii) tools to monitor power outages, (iii) tools to restore power supply, (iv) regulatory monitoring of utilities’ performance, (v) financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages, and (vi) transparency and accessibility of tariffs. An economy is eligible to obtain a score on the reliability of supply and transparency of tariffs index only if (i) the utility collects data on all types of outages (average total duration of outages per customer and the average number of outages per customer), including planned and unplanned outages, as well as load shedding, with the minimum outage time of not more than 5 minutes; and (ii) the SAIDI value is below a threshold of 100 hours and the SAIFI value is under 100 outages. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Reliability of supply and transparency of tariff index (0-8) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the reliability of supply and transparency of tariff index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: System average interruption duration index (SAIDI) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The system average interruption duration index is the average total duration of outages (in hours) experienced by a customer in a year. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: System average interruption frequency index (SAIFI) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The system average interruption frequency index (SAIFI) is the average number of service interruptions experienced by a customer in a year. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


Developmentrelevance: Where the rules are excessively burdensome, resource-constrained entrepreneurs might not have the opportunity to turn their ideas into a business. More generally, making it difficult to start a business may prevent an economy and its private sector from reaping the benefits of business formalization. In fact, a growing body of empirical research shows a positive correlation between business entry regulations and social and economic outcomes. Economies with high levels of formal entrepreneurship also benefit from higher levels of employment and enhanced economic growth. Moreover, as more businesses formalize, the tax base expands, which enables governments to spend on productivity-enhancing areas and pursue other social and economic policy objectives. Conversely, economies with overly cumbersome regulations for starting a business are associated with higher levels of informality and corruption as well as a smaller tax base.

IndicatorName: Cost - Women (% of income per capita)

Longdefinition: The cost for women is the total cost required for five female married entrepreneurs to complete the procedures to incorporate and operate a business. It is calculated as a percentage of income per capita. All the fees and costs associated with completing the procedures to start a business are recorded, including all official fees and fees for legal and professional services, if such services are required by law or commonly used in practice. Only incorporation costs are counted, which excludes value added taxes and bribes.

Topic: Starting a business


IndicatorName: Score-Cost - Women (% of income per capita)

Longdefinition: The score for the cost for women benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Cost - Men (% of income per capita)

Longdefinition: The cost for men is the total cost required for five male married entrepreneurs to complete the procedures to incorporate and operate a business. It is calculated as a percentage of income per capita. All the fees and costs associated with completing the procedures to start a business are recorded, including all official fees and fees for legal and professional services, if such services are required by law or commonly used in practice. Only incorporation costs are counted, which excludes value added taxes and bribes.


IndicatorName: Score-Cost - Men (% of income per capita)

Longdefinition: The score for the cost for men benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Score-Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita)

Longdefinition: The score for the paid-in minimum capital requirement benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Time - Women (days)

Longdefinition: The time for women captures the median duration that business incorporation experts indicate is necessary for five female married entrepreneurs to complete all procedures required to start and operate a business with minimum follow-up and no extra payments. It is calulared in calendar days. The time estimates of all procedures are added to calculate the total time required to start and operate a business, taking into account simultaneity of processes. It is assumed that the minimum time required for each procedure is one day, except for procedures that can be fully completed online, for which the time required is recorded as half a day.


IndicatorName: Score-Time - Women (days)

Longdefinition: The score for the time for women benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Time - Men (days)

Longdefinition: The time for men captures the median duration that business incorporation experts indicate is necessary for five male married entrepreneurs to complete all procedures required to start and operate a business with minimum follow-up and no extra payments. It is calulared in calendar days. The time estimates of all procedures are added to calculate the total time required to start and operate a business, taking into account simultaneity of processes. It is assumed that the minimum time required for each procedure is one day, except for procedures that can be fully completed online, for which the time required is recorded as half a day.


IndicatorName: Score-Time - Men (days)

Longdefinition: The score for the time for men benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita)

Longdefinition: The paid-in minimum capital requirement re?ects the amount that the entrepreneur needs to deposit in a bank or with a third-party before registration or up to three months after incorporation. It is calculated as percentage of income per capita. Any legal limitation of the company’s operations or decisions related to the payment of the minimum capital requirement is recorded. In case the legal minimum capital is provided per share, it is assumed 5 shareholders own the company and the legal minimum capital is multiplied by 5 shares. If an economy requires a minimum capital but allows businesses to pay only a part of it before registration, only this part is recorded.


IndicatorName: Procedures - Women (number)

Longdefinition: The number of procedures for women records all the procedures required in practice for five female married entrepreneurs to start and operate a local limited liability company. A procedure is de?ned as any interaction of the company founders with external parties or spouses (if legally required). Both pre- and post-incorporation procedures that are officially required or commonly done in practice are recorded.


IndicatorName: Score-Procedures - Women (number)

Longdefinition: The score for the number of procedures for women benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Procedures - Men (number)

Longdefinition: The number of procedures for men records all the procedures required in practice for five male married entrepreneurs to start and operate a local limited liability company. A procedure is de?ned as any interaction of the company founders with external parties.  Both pre- and post-incorporation procedures that are officially required or commonly done in practice are recorded.


IndicatorName: Score-Procedures - Men (number)

Longdefinition: The score for the number of procedures for men benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


Developmentrelevance: Registered property rights are necessary to support investment, productivity and growth. Cadasters or surveys, together with land registries, are tools used around the world to map, prove and secure property and use rights. Keeping an up-to-date land information system is crucial as land and buildings account for between half and three-quarters of the wealth in most economies. Implementing an effective property registration system makes local owners more likely to invest in the economy. Formal property markets also increase domestic stability and decrease the likelihood of evictions in poor, urban areas, which is beneficial for employment and productivity.

IndicatorName: Cost (% of property value)

Longdefinition: The cost is the total of official costs associated with completing the procedures to transfer the property, expressed as a percentage of the property value, assumed to be equivalent to 50 times income per capita. It is calculted as a percentage of the property value. Only official costs required by law are recorded, including fees, transfer taxes, stamp duties and any other payment to the property registry, notaries, public agencies or lawyers. Other taxes, such as capital gains tax or value added tax, are excluded from the cost measure. Both costs borne by the buyer and the seller are included. If cost estimates differ among sources, the median reported value is used.


IndicatorName: Score-Cost (% of property value)

Longdefinition: The score for cost benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Score-Registering property (DB05-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for registering property is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time, cost to transfer property between two local companies, as well as the quality of land administration index that evaluates the reliability of infrastructure, transparency of information, geographic coverage, land dispute resolution and equal access to property rights. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB05-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Registering property (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for registering property is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time, cost to transfer property between two local companies, as well as the quality of land administration index that evaluates the reliability of infrastructure, transparency of information, geographic coverage, land dispute resolution and equal access to property rights. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Equal access to property rights index (-2-0) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: 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.


IndicatorName: Geographic coverage index (0-8) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The geographic coverage index assesses the extent to which the land registry and cadastre provide complete geographic coverage of privately held land parcels. It has four components: (i) how complete the coverage of the land registry is at the level of the largest business city; (ii) how complete the coverage of the land registry is at the level of the economy; (iii) how complete the coverage of the mapping agency is at the level of the largest business city; and (iv) how complete the coverage of the mapping agency is at the level of the economy. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Land dispute resolution index (0-8) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: 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 registered 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 property transaction based on erroneous information certified by the immovable 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 businesses over tenure rights worth 50 times income per capita and located in the largest business city; and (viii) whether there are publicly available statistics on the number of land disputes in the first instance. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Quality of land administration index (0-30) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The quality of land administration index is the sum of the reliability of infrastructure, transparency of information, geographic coverage, land dispute resolution and equal access to property rights. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Quality of land administration index (0-30) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the quality of land administration index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Rank-Registering property

Longdefinition: The ranking of economies on the ease of registering property is determined by sorting their scores for registering property.


IndicatorName: Reliability of infrastructure index (0-8) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The reliability of infrastructure index assesses whether the land registry and cadaster have adequate infrastructure to guarantee high standards and reduce the risk of errors. It has six components: (i) how land titles are kept at the registry of the largest business city of the economy; (ii) whether there is an electronic database for checking for encumbrances; (iii) how maps of land plots are kept at the mapping agency of the largest business city of the economy; (iv) whether there is a geographic information system—an electronic database for recording boundaries, checking plans and providing cadastral information; (v) how the land ownership registry and mapping agency are linked; and (vi) how immovable property is identified. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Transparency of information index (0-6) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: 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 registration of property transactions is made publicly available; (iii) whether the fee schedule for completing the registration of property 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.


IndicatorName: Score-Starting a business

Longdefinition: The score for starting a business is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the procedures, time and cost for an entrepreneur to start and formally operate a business, as well as the paid-in minimum capital requirement.


IndicatorName: Rank-Starting a business

Longdefinition: The ranking of economies on the ease of starting a business is determined by sorting their scores for starting a business.


Developmentrelevance: Governments need sustainable sources of funding for social programs and public investments to foster economic growth and development. The amount of the tax cost for businesses matters for investment and growth. Keeping tax rates at a reasonable level can encourage the development of the private sector and the formalization of businesses. Efficient tax administration can help encourage businesses to become formally registered, thereby expanding the tax base and increasing tax revenues.

IndicatorName: Other taxes (% of profit)

Longdefinition: The other taxes measures all other taxes and fees that are borne by the business in the second year of operation, expressed as a share of commercial pro?t. This includes property taxes, turnover taxes and other taxes (such as municipal fees and vehicle taxes).

Topic: Paying taxes


IndicatorName: Time to comply with a corporate income tax correction (hours) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The time to comply with a corporate income tax correction measures the time spent preparing and submitting the correction, and the time spent preparing information for the tax officers, if, in 25% or more of cases, a company that voluntarily reports an error in its CIT return and an underpayment of the tax due would be selected for additional review. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Time to comply with a corporate income tax correction (hours) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for time to comply with a corporate income tax correction benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


Longdefinition: Time to complete a corporate income tax correction (weeks) (DB17-20 methodology) measures the time to complete a review by the tax authority including a formal tax audit if in 25% or more of cases, a company that voluntarily reports an error in its corporate income tax return and an underpayment of the tax due would be selected for additional review. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Time to complete a corporate income tax correction (weeks) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for time to complete with a corporate income tax correction benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Paying taxes (DB06-16 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for paying taxes is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators, the payments, time and total tax and contribution rate for a company to comply with tax laws in an economy. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-16 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Paying taxes (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for paying taxes is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators, the payments, time and total tax and contribution rate for a company to comply with tax laws in an economy, as well as the postfiling procedures to request and process a VAT refund claim and to comply with and complete a corporate income tax correction. The score is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Labor tax and contributions (% of profit)

Longdefinition: The labor tax and contributions measures all government mandated labor contributions that are borne by the business in the second year of operation, expressed as a share of commercial pro?t.


IndicatorName: Score-Postfiling index (0-100) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for postfiling index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Profit tax (% of profit)

Longdefinition: The profit tax measures the amount of income taxes borne by the business in the second year of operation, expressed as a share of commercial pro?t.


IndicatorName: Payments (number per year)

Longdefinition: The tax payments capture the total number of taxes and contributions paid, the method of payment, the frequency of payment, and the frequency of ?ling. It includes taxes withheld by the company, such as sales tax, VAT and employee-borne labor taxes.


IndicatorName: Score-Payments (number per year)

Longdefinition: The score for tax payments benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Rank-Paying taxes

Longdefinition: The ranking of economies on the ease of paying taxes is determined by sorting their scores for paying taxes.


IndicatorName: Time (hours per year)

Longdefinition: The time to comply with tax laws measures the time taken to prepare, ?le and pay three major types of taxes and contributions: the corporate income tax, value added or sales tax and labor taxes, including payroll taxes and social contributions.


IndicatorName: Score-Time (hours per year)

Longdefinition: The score for time to comply with tax laws benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Total tax and contribution rate (% of profit)

Longdefinition: The total tax and contribution rate measures the amount of taxes and mandatory contributions borne by the business in the second year of operation, expressed as a share of commercial pro?t. The total amount of taxes and contributions borne is the sum of all the different taxes and contributions payable after accounting for allowable deductions and exemptions. The taxes withheld (such as personal income tax) or collected by the company and remitted to the tax authorities (such as VAT, sales tax or goods and service tax) but not borne by the company are excluded.


IndicatorName: Score-Total tax and contribution rate (% of profit)

Longdefinition: The score for total tax and contribution rate benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Time to obtain VAT refund (weeks) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The time to obtain VAT refund measures the time from purchase of the machine to the date of submission of the refund claim (this is equal to half the filing period), the length of any mandatory period that the excess output VAT must be carried forward before a claim can be made, and the time from the submission of the VAT refund claim to the date the refund is received. If a company that requests a VAT cash refund arising from a capital purchase would be selected for additional review in 50% or more of cases, the duration of the review is included in the time to obtain a VAT refund. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Time to obtain VAT refund (weeks) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for time to obtain VAT refund benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Time to comply with VAT refund (hours) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The time to comply with VAT refund measures the time spent preparing and submitting the refund claim and the time spent preparing information for the tax officers, if, in 50% or more of cases, a company that requests a VAT cash refund arising from a capital purchase would be selected for an additional review. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Time to comply with VAT refund (hours) (DB17-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for time to comply with VAT refund benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.


Developmentrelevance: Minority investors protection plays a crucial part in addressing many corporate governance issues. One of the most important problems in corporate governance is self-dealing—the use of corporate assets by company insiders for personal gain. Empirical research shows that stricter regulation of self-dealing is associated with greater equity investment and lower concentration of ownership. Corporate governance standards on board composition and independence, firm transparency and disclosure, and shareholders' rights relative to the board of directors and management can minimize the agency problem between majority and minority shareholders as well as that between minority shareholders and the board of directors and management.

IndicatorName: Score-Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for protecting minority investors benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator set. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-14 studies.

Topic: Protecting minority investors


IndicatorName: Score-Protecting minority investors (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for protecting minority investors benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator set. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) (DB06-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The ease of shareholder suits index measures how likely plaintiffs are to access internal corporate evidence. It has six components: (i) whether shareholders owning 10% of the company’s share capital have the right to inspect the Buyer-Seller transaction documents before filing a suit; (ii) whether shareholders owning 10% of the company’s share capital can request that a government inspector investigate the Buyer-Seller transaction without filing a suit; (iii) what range of documents is available to the shareholder plaintiff from the defendant and witnesses during trial; (iv) whether the plaintiff can obtain categories of relevant documents from the defendant without identifying each document specifically; (v) whether the plaintiff can directly examine the defendant and witnesses during trial (0-2); and (vi) whether the standard of proof for civil suits is lower than that for criminal cases. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-14 studies.


IndicatorName: Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The ease of shareholder suits index measures how likely plaintiffs are to access internal corporate evidence and recover legal expenses. It has six components: (i) whether shareholders owning 10% of the company’s share capital have the right to inspect the Buyer-Seller transaction documents before filing a suit. Alternatively, whether they can request that a government inspector investigate the Buyer-Seller transaction without filing a suit; (ii) what range of documents is available to the shareholder plaintiff from the defendant and witnesses during trial; (iii) whether the plaintiff can obtain categories of relevant documents from the defendant without identifying each document specifically; (iv) whether the plaintiff can directly examine the defendant and witnesses during trial; (v) whether the standard of proof for civil suits is lower than that for criminal cases; and (vi) whether shareholder plaintiffs can recover their legal expenses from the company. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) (DB06-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for ease of shareholder suits index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-14 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for ease of shareholder suits index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Extent of disclosure index (0-10)

Longdefinition: The extent of disclosure index measures the approval and disclosure requirements of related-party transactions. It has five components: (i) whether it is the managing director alone, the board of directors, or the general meeting of shareholders the corporate body who can provide legally sufficient approval for the transaction (points are assigned depending on whether interested directors are permitted to vote or not); (ii) whether an external body (an independent auditor, for example) must review the transaction before it takes place; (iii) whether disclosure by Mr. James to the board of directors or the supervisory board is required; (iv) whether immediate disclosure of the transaction to the public, the regulator or the shareholders is required; and (v) whether disclosure in periodic filings (for example, annual reports) is required.


IndicatorName: Extent of corporate transparency index (0-7) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The extent of corporate transparency index measures the level of information that companies must share regarding their board members, senior executives, annual meetings and audits. This index has seven components: (i) whether Buyer must disclose direct and indirect beneficial ownership stakes representing 5%; (ii) whether Buyer must disclose information about board members’ primary employment and directorships in other companies; (iii) whether Buyer must disclose the compensation of individual managers; (iv) whether a detailed notice of general meeting must be sent 21 calendar days before the meeting; (v) whether shareholders representing 5% of Buyer’s share capital can put items on the general meeting agenda; (vi) whether Buyer’s annual financial statements must be audited by an external auditor; (vii) whether Buyer must disclose its audit reports to the public. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Extent of corporate transparency index (0-7) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for extent of corporate transparency index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Extent of director liability index (0-10)

Longdefinition: The score for extent of director liability index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Score-Extent of disclosure index (0-10)

Longdefinition: The score for extent of disclosure index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Extent of ownership and control index (0-7) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The extent of ownership and control index measures the rules governing the structure and change in control of companies. This index has seven components: (i) whether the same individual cannot be appointed CEO and chairperson of the board of directors; (ii) whether the board of directors must include independent nonexecutive board members; (iii) whether shareholder can remove members of the board of directors without cause before the end of their term; (iv) whether the board of directors must have an audit committee; (v) whether a potential acquirer must make a tender offer to all shareholders upon acquiring 50% of Buyer; (vi) whether Buyer must pay declared dividends within a maximum period set by law; (vii) whether a subsidiary cannot acquire shares issued by its parent company. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Extent of ownership and control index (0-7) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for extent of ownership and control index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Extent of shareholder rights index (0-6) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The extent of shareholder rights index measures the role of shareholders in key corporate decisions. It has six components: (i) whether the sale of 51% of Buyer’s assets requires shareholder approval; (ii) whether shareholders representing 10% of Buyer’s share capital have the right to call for a meeting of shareholders; (iii) whether Buyer must obtain its shareholders’ approval every time it issues new shares; (iv) whether shareholders automatically receive preemption rights when Buyer issues new shares; (v) whether shareholders elect and dismiss the external auditor; (vi) whether changes to the rights of a class of shares are only possible if the holders of the affected shares approve. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Extent of shareholder rights index (0-6) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for extent of shareholder rights index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Extent of director liability index (0-10)

Longdefinition: The extent of director liability index measures when board members can be held liable for harm caused by related-party transactions and what sanctions are available. It has seven components: (i) whether shareholders can sue directly or derivatively for the damage the transaction causes to the company; (ii) whether a shareholder plaintiff can hold Mr. James liable for the damage the Buyer-Seller transaction causes to the company; (iii) whether a shareholder plaintiff can hold other executives and directors (the CEO, members of the board of directors or members of the supervisory board) liable for the damage the transaction causes to the company; (iv) whether Mr. James pays damages for the harm caused to the company upon a successful claim by the shareholder plaintiff; (v) whether Mr. James repays profits made from the transaction upon a successful claim by the shareholder plaintiff; (vi) whether Mr. James is disqualified upon a successful claim by the shareholder plaintiff; and (vii) whether a court can void the transaction upon a successful claim by a shareholder plaintiff.


IndicatorName: Rank-Protecting minority investors

Longdefinition: The ranking of economies on the strength of minority shareholder protections is determined by sorting their scores for protecting minority investors.


IndicatorName: Strength of investor protection index (0-30) (DB06-14 methodology)

Longdefinition: The strength of investor protection index is the sum of the extent of disclosure index, extent of director liability index and ease of shareholder suits index. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-14 studies.


IndicatorName: Strength of minority investor protection index (0-50) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The strength of minority investor protection index is the sum of the extent of disclosure index, extent of director liability index, ease of shareholder suits index, extent of shareholder rights index, extent of ownership and control index and extent of corporate transparency index. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.


Developmentrelevance: Keeping viable businesses operating is among the most important goals of insolvency systems. A good insolvency regime should inhibit the premature liquidation of sustainable businesses. It should also discourage lenders from issuing high-risk loans, and managers and shareholders from taking imprudent loans and making other reckless financial decisions. A firm suffering from poor management choices or a temporary economic downturn can still be turned around. When this happens, all stakeholders benefit. Creditors can recover a larger part of their investment, more employees keep their jobs and the network of suppliers and customers is preserved.

IndicatorName: Commencement of proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The commencement of proceedings index has three components: (i) whether debtors can initiate both liquidation and reorganization proceedings; (ii) whether creditors can initiate both liquidation and reorganization proceedings; and (iii) what standard is used for commencement of insolvency proceedings.

Topic: Resolving insolvency


IndicatorName: Cost (% of estate)

Longdefinition: The cost to resolve insolvency is the cost of the proceedings is recorded as a percentage of the value of the debtor’s estate, including court fees and government levies, fees of insolvency administrators, auctioneers, assessors and lawyers, and all other fees and costs.


IndicatorName: Creditor participation index (0-4) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The creditor participation index has four components: (i) whether creditors appoint the insolvency representative or approve, ratify or reject the appointment of the insolvency representative; (ii) Whether creditors are required to approve the sale of substantial assets of the debtor in the course of insolvency proceedings; (iii) Whether an individual creditor has the right to access financial information about the debtor during insolvency proceedings; and (iv) Whether an individual creditor can object to a decision of the court or of the insolvency representative to approve or reject claims against the debtor brought by the creditor itself and by other creditors.


IndicatorName: Score-Resolving insolvency

Longdefinition: The score for resolving insolvency is the simple average of the scores for each of the component indicators: the recovery rate of insolvency proceedings involving domestic entities, as well as the strength of the legal framework applicable to judicial liquidation and reorganization proceedings.


IndicatorName: Score-Recovery rate (cents on the dollar)

Longdefinition: The score for recovery rate benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Time (years)

Longdefinition: The time to resolve insolvency captures the time for creditors to recover their credit and is recorded in calendar years. Potential delay tactics by the parties, such as the filing of dilatory appeals or requests for extension, are taken into consideration.


IndicatorName: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The management of debtor's assets index has six components: (i) whether the debtor (or an insolvency representative on its behalf) can continue performing contracts essential to the debtor’s survival; (ii) whether the debtor (or an insolvency representative on its behalf) can reject overly burdensome contracts; (iii) whether undervalued transactions entered into before commencement of insolvency proceedings can be avoided after proceedings are initiated; (iv) whether transactions entered into before commencement of insolvency proceedings that give preference to one or several creditors can be avoided after proceedings are initiated; (v) whether the insolvency framework includes specific provisions that allow the debtor (or an insolvency representative on its behalf), after commencement of insolvency proceedings, to obtain financing necessary to function during the proceedings; and (vi) whether post-commencement finance receives priority over ordinary unsecured creditors during distribution of assets.


IndicatorName: Outcome (0 as piecemeal sale and 1 as going concern)

Longdefinition: Outcome records whether the case study company emerges from the proceedings as a going concern (1) or its assets are sold piecemeal (0). If the business continues operating, 100% of the company value is preserved. If the assets are sold piecemeal, the maximum amount that can be recovered is 70% of the value of the company.


IndicatorName: Recovery rate (cents on the dollar)

Longdefinition: The recovery rate is recorded as cents on the dollar recovered by secured creditors through judicial reorganization, liquidation or debt enforcement (foreclosure or receivership) proceedings. The calculation takes into account the outcome: whether the business emerges from the proceedings as a going concern or the assets are sold piecemeal.


IndicatorName: Score-Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)

Longdefinition: The score for strength of insolvency framework index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.


IndicatorName: Rank-Resolving insolvency

Longdefinition: The ranking of economies on the ease of resolving insolvency is determined by sorting their scores for resolving insolvency.


IndicatorName: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The reorganization proceedings index has three components: (i) whether the reorganization plan is voted on only by the creditors whose rights are modified or affected by the plan; (ii) whether creditors entitled to vote on the plan are divided into classes, each class votes separately and the creditors within each class are treated equally; and (iii) whether the insolvency framework requires that dissenting creditors receive as much under the reorganization plan as they would have received in liquidation.


IndicatorName: Strength of insolvency framework index (0-16)

Longdefinition: The strength of insolvency framework index measures the legal framework applicable to judicial liquidation and reorganization proceedings and the extent to which best insolvency practices have been implemented in each economy covered by the Doing Business. This index ranges has four components, the commencement of proceedings index, management of debtor’s assets index, reorganization proceedings index and creditor participation index.


Developmentrelevance: Access to international markets plays an important role in an economy’s development. Logistics and freight expenses, customs administrative fees and border costs have become important for small traders. While the significance of small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) in the overall economy is widely recognized, until recently SMEs were largely absent from trade debates. Along with fixed entry costs, cumbersome border procedures and standards are major hurdles for SMEs. Given that SMEs account for the majority of firms and the vast majority of employment worldwide, encouraging government policies aimed at facilitating the participation of SMEs in trade is essential.

IndicatorName: Score-Trading across borders (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: Doing Business measures the time and cost associated with exporting and importing a standardized cargo of goods by sea transport. The time and cost necessary to complete 4 predefined stages (document preparation; customs clearance and inspections; inland transport and handling; and port and terminal handling) for exporting and importing the goods are recorded. All documents needed by the trader to export or import the goods across the border are also recorded. The process of exporting goods ranges from packing the goods into the container at the warehouse to their departure from the port of exit. The process of importing goods ranges from the vessel’s arrival at the port of entry to the cargo’s delivery at the warehouse. For landlocked economies, since the seaport is located in the transit economy, the time, cost and documents associated with the processes at the inland border are also included. The score for trading across borders is a simple average of the cost to export and import, time to export and import, and the number documents to export and import. It is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.

Topic: Trading across borders


IndicatorName: Score-Trading across borders (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: Doing Business measures the time and cost associated with three sets of procedures of exporting and importing goods —documentary compliance, border compliance and domestic transport—within the overall process of exporting or importing a shipment of goods. The score for trading across borders is the simple average of the scores for the time and cost for documentary compliance and border compliance to export and import. It is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Time to export: Documentary compliance (hours) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The time for documentary compliance to export records the time associated with compliance with the export documentary requirements of all government agencies of the origin economy, the destination economy and any transit economies. It is calculated in hours.  It includes the time for obtaining documents; preparing documents; processing documents; presenting documents; and submitting documents. All electronic or paper submissions of information requested by any government agency in connection with the shipment are considered to be documents obtained, prepared and submitted during the export process. All documents prepared by the freight forwarder or customs broker for the product and partner pair assumed in the case study are included regardless of whether they are required by law or in practice. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The number of documents to export records the number of documents required by law or common practice by relevant agencies per export shipment. All documents required by law or common practice by relevant agencies—including government ministries, customs authorities, port authorities and other control agencies—per export shipment are taken into account. For landlocked economies, documents required by authorities in the transit economy are also included. Since payment is by letter of credit, all documents required by banks for the issuance or securing of a letter of credit are also taken into account. Documents that are requested at the time of clearance but that are valid for a year or longer or do not require renewal per shipment (for example, an annual tax clearance certificate) are not included. Documents that are required by customs authorities purely for purposes of preferential treatment but are not required for any other purpose by any of the authorities in the process of trading are not included. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the number of documents to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The number of documents to import records the number of documents required by law or common practice by relevant agencies per import shipment. All documents required by law or common practice by relevant agencies—including government ministries, customs authorities, port authorities and other control agencies—per import shipment are taken into account. For landlocked economies, documents required by authorities in the transit economy are also included. Since payment is by letter of credit, all documents required by banks for the issuance or securing of a letter of credit are also taken into account. Documents that are requested at the time of clearance but that are valid for a year or longer or do not require renewal per shipment (for example, an annual tax clearance certificate) are not included. Documents that are required by customs authorities purely for purposes of preferential treatment but are not required for any other purpose by any of the authorities in the process of trading are not included. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the number of documents to import benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Time to export: Border compliance (hours) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The time for border compliance to export records the time associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the export shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. It is calulcated in hours. The time for this segment includes time for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other agencies. If all customs clearance and other inspections take place at the port or border at the same time, the time estimate for border compliance takes this simultaneity into account. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The cost for border compliance to export records the cost associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the export shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. It is calculated in US dollars. The cost for this segment include the cost for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other agencies. For example, the cost for conducting a phytosanitary inspection would be included here. Informal payments for which no receipt is issued are excluded from the costs recorded. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the cost for border compliance to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Cost to export (US$ per container deflated) (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The cost to export records the cost associated with exporting a standardized cargo of goods by sea transport through 4 predefined stages: document preparation; customs clearance and inspections; inland transport and handling; and port and terminal handling. It is calculated in US dollars per container deflated. Cost measures the fees levied on the export of goods in a 20-foot container, in US dollars. All fees charged by government agencies and the private sector to a trader in the process of exporting and importing the goods are taken into account. These include but are not limited to costs for documents, administrative fees for customs clearance and inspections, customs broker fees, port-related charges and inland transport costs. Only official costs are recorded. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Cost to export (US$ per container deflated) (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the cost to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The cost for documentary compliance to export records the cost associated with compliance with the export documentary requirements of all government agencies of the origin economy, the destination economy and any transit economies. It is calculated in UD dollars. The cost for documentary compliance includes the cost for obtaining, preparing, processing, presenting and submitting documents. Insurance cost and informal payments for which no receipt is issued are excluded from the costs recorded. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the cost for documentary compliance to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The time to export records the time associated with exporting a standardized cargo of goods by sea transport through 4 predefined stages: document preparation; customs clearance and inspections; inland transport and handling; and port and terminal handling. It is calculated in calendar days. The time calculation for each of the 4 predefined stages starts from the moment the stage is initiated and runs until it is completed. Fast-track procedures applying only to firms located in an export processing zone, or only to certain accredited firms under authorized economic operator programs, are not taken into account because they are not available to all trading companies. Sea transport time is not included. It is assumed that neither the exporter nor the importer wastes time and that each commits to completing the process without delay. It is assumed that document preparation, inland transport and handling, customs clearance and inspections, and port and terminal handling require a minimum time of 1 day each and cannot take place simultaneously. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Time to export: Border compliance (hours) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the time for border compliance to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Time to export: Documentary compliance (hours) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the time for documentary compliance to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.


IndicatorName: Score-Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Longdefinition: The score for the time to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.


IndicatorName: Time to import: Border compliance (hours) (DB16-20 methodology)

Longdefinition: The time for border compliance to import records the time associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the import shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. It is calculate in hours. The time for this segment includes time for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other agencies. If all customs clearance and other inspections take place at the port or border at the same time, the time estimate for border compliance takes this simultaneity into account. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.