2

Madalina Papahagi & Tommaso RoomsSubnational Doing Business

Athens, 13 November 2019

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Resolving a commercial dispute through the courts: Greece

GREECE

Litigation time (days) – EU countries

Cos

t (%

of c

laim

val

ue)

United Kingdom

Luxembourg

Czech Republic

Italy

Portugal

Larissa

Thessaloniki

Cyprus

Resolving a commercial dispute through the courts: also Greece

4

”Global” and “Subnational” Doing Business: what are the differences?

Subnational Doing

Business

Global Doing

Business

• Demand driven• Go beyond the largest city• Selected DB indicators relevant at

subnational level• Replicable local good practices• Tailored reform recommendations• City stories• 500+ cities in 76 economies

• WBG annual flagship• Largest business city used as

proxy• 11 indicators• International good practices• 190 economies • More than 3,000 recorded

reforms• Country stories

5

• Two studies published, covering 47 cities across 7 EU member states.

• Current study includes 24 cities from 3 EU member states.

• Next study will cover cities in Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Subnational Doing Business studies in EU member states

Thessaloniki

Pátra

Athens

Heraklion

Larissa

Alexandroupoli

6

PLUS 5 cities in Ireland and 13 cities in Italy

6 cities

5 Doing Business indicator areas:• Starting a business• Dealing with construction permits• Getting electricity• Registering property• Enforcing contracts

Which cities and indicators are measured in Greece?

7

Four different cities at the top in the five areas measured

Rank(1–6)

Score (0–100)

Rank(1–6)

Score (0–100)

Rank(1–6)

Score (0–100)

Rank(1–6)

Score (0–100)

Rank(1–6)

Score (0–100)

Alexandroupoli 1 96.25 5 66.03 2 85.42 3 46.86 3 52.65Athens 2 96.00 3 69.53 3 84.74 3 46.86 6 48.11Heraklion 2 96.00 6 63.99 5 82.70 6 36.69 5 50.94Larissa 2 96.00 1 70.85 4 84.44 2 47.09 2 55.38Patra 2 96.00 4 69.09 1 88.11 1 47.77 4 51.32Thessaloniki 2 96.00 2 70.13 6 81.29 5 44.68 1 57.83

Enforcing contracts

City

Starting a business

Dealing with construction

permitsGetting

electricityRegistering

property

Ranking tables

City Starting a businessDealing with construction permitsGetting electricityRegistering propertyEnforcing contracts

Rank(1–6)Score (0–100)Rank(1–6)Score (0–100)Rank(1–6)Score (0–100)Rank(1–6)Score (0–100)Rank(1–6)Score (0–100)

Alexandroupoli196.25566.03285.42346.86352.65

Athens296.00369.53384.74346.86648.11

Heraklion296.00663.99582.70636.69550.94

Larissa296.00170.85484.44247.09255.38

Patra296.00469.09188.11147.77451.32

Thessaloniki296.00270.13681.29544.68157.83

8

There is significant variation in regulatory performance among Greek cities in 4 out of the 5 areas benchmarked

Score (0–100)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Greece

Denmark

Germany

Lithuania

Lithuania

Dealing with construction

permits

Registering property

Starting a business

Highest score in country Lowest score in country0

Larisa

Heraklion

Patra

Thessaloniki

Getting electricity

Enforcing contracts

Patra Athens

Thessaloniki

Heraklion

EU average

(EU best)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

2019

2010

Recent reforms made Greece the EU champion on starting a business

Procedures (number)

Tim

e (d

ays)

EU Average

10

Transferring a property title is fastest in Patra…

11

…but the quality of the land administration system is highest in Thessaloniki

12

Trial time varies from 17 months in Larissa to just under 4 years in Athens

60

40

45

50

60

35

40

1400

665

690

635

610

510

459

251

305

265

275

265

270

132

0 500 1000 1500

Athens

Patra

Heraklion

Alexandroupoli

Thessaloniki

Larissa

EU average

Time to resolve a commercial dispute (calendar days)

Filing and service Trial and judgment Enforcement of judgment

EU average

13

Quality of judicial processes (0-18)3 3 3

5 5

2

21

1

2.52.5

2.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Athens Thessaloniki 4 cities

Alternative disputeresolution (0-3)

Court automation(0-4)

Case management(0-6)

Court structure andproceedings (-1-5)

Qua

lity

of ju

dici

alpr

oces

ses (

0-18

)12.5

8.5

11.5

Athens and Thessaloniki exhibit the most judicial good practices

14

The construction permitting process can be completed 4 months faster in Larissa than in Heraklion

15

Athens and Patra have the strictest qualification requirements for professionals that review and verify building plans

0

3

6

9

12

15

Athens, Patra Heraklion,Thessaloniki

Alexandroupoli,Larissa

Bui

ldin

g qu

ality

con

trol

inde

x (0

-15)

Professional certifications:(0-4)

Liability and insuranceregimes: (0-2)

Quality control afterconstruction: (0-3)

Quality control duringconstruction: (0-3)

Quality control beforeconstruction: (0-1)

Quality of buildingregulations: (0-2)

16

Getting electricity takes the least time in Alexandroupoli but the supply is most reliable in Patra

17

How to improve? Emulation of local good practices

Dealing with Construction Permits

A city combining these best practices would climb 42 places in the ranking on this indicator (from 86 to 44)

ALEXANDROUPOLIS’construction permitting procedures

LARISSA’s efficient

processing time

THESSALONIKI’s relatively low

cost

ATHENS & PATRA’S strong building quality

control mechanisms

18

Enforcing contracts

A city combining these best practices would climb 87 places in the ranking on this

indicator (from 146 to 59)

LARISSA’s relatively fast trial

time

PATRA’s lower

litigation cost

ATHENS’ judicial good

practices

How to improve? Emulation of local good practices

19

Significant potential for improvement through the emulation of local good practices

0 20 40 60 80 100

Getting credit

Registering property

Enforcing contracts

Resolving insolvency

Dealing with construction permits

Protecting minority investors

Paying taxes

Getting electricity

Trading across borders

Starting a business

Ease of doing business score (0 – 100)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

If Athens adopted each city’s best practices, Greece would climb 18 places on the overall ease of doing business, from 79 to 61.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1

190

Ease

of d

oing

bus

ines

s ran

k

20

How has peer-to-peer learning worked in other member states?

What did the Polish cities with the least efficient business registration learn from their peers with better practices

21www.doingbusiness.org/EU3

Slide Number 1Slide Number 2Resolving a commercial dispute through the courts: GreeceSlide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21