B-READY Labor Regulation Quality
World Bank Business Ready 2025 overall labor score measuring regulation quality, public services, and efficiency.
According to the International Labour Organization, the World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, this ranking draws on official employment-protection indicators published through 2025; see our methodology for source vintages and how each score is computed.
Taiwan ranks #1 for B-READY Labor Regulation Quality at 81.4, according to World Bank B-READY.
B-READY Labor Regulation Quality ranks 101 countries. World Bank Business Ready 2025 overall labor score measuring regulation quality, public services, and efficiency, measured on a 0-100 World Bank B-READY scale. Taiwan leads the table at 81.4, against a 101-country median of 66.3. South Sudan sits at the opposite end with 48.5. Every score reflects the 2025 release cycle and links through to the full statutory or survey detail behind each country's number.
The ranking in one line
Taiwan leads the 101-country b-ready labor regulation quality ranking at 81.4, against a global median of 66.3.
- 81.4
- #1 - Taiwan
- 66.3
- global median
- 65.4
- mean across all
- 101
- countries ranked
Source: World Bank B-READY. Scale 0-100.
Reading the B-READY Labor Regulation Quality Ranking
This ranking sorts 101 countries by b-ready labor regulation quality, drawn directly from World Bank B-READY with a native scale of 0-100. World Bank Business Ready 2025 overall labor score measuring regulation quality, public services, and efficiency. Data on this page reflects the 2025 release cycle, published as the 2025 edition of the World Bank Business Ready report. All rankings use unique ranks, alphabetical tie-breaking means every country has a distinct position, even when raw values match to two decimals.
The average across all 101 ranked countries is 65.4, with a median of 66.3. The median is the middle-ranked country's own value, so a handful of unusually high or low countries can't pull it the way they pull an average; here the two sit close together, meaning the tracked countries cluster fairly evenly around the middle. At the top of the table sit Taiwan (81.4), Malta (79.0), and Canada (78.4). At the bottom, South Sudan reports 48.5, below Tonga (49.2) and Madagascar (50.4). The spread between highest and lowest is 32.9, indicating how much statutory or practical variation exists within the tracked countries.
Ranking order does not imply a value judgment, higher scores on B-READY Labor Regulation Quality mean better overall labor regulation quality, which different stakeholders read differently. For workers, higher values typically signal stronger formal safeguards against dismissal; for employers, they signal higher adjustment costs and longer dismissal processes. Click any country row to open its full profile, where the same indicator is displayed alongside related metrics, notice periods, severance schedules, B-READY pillar breakdowns, or OECD historical trends, so that the rank you see here can be traced back to concrete statutory rules and World Bank survey measurements. All underlying values are stored on PlainEmploy exactly as published by World Bank B-READY, with no transformation beyond the rank calculation.
A ranking like this one is most useful for spotting groups of countries that behave similarly, not for reading too much into a single position. The countries near the top share strong statutory protections against dismissal, the middle band tends to balance worker security against employer flexibility, and the lower positions usually reflect labor markets that lean toward easier hiring and firing. Small gaps between adjacent ranks rarely matter, because the underlying indicators are built from survey responses and legal coding that carry their own margin of error. Pay more attention to which tier a country falls into than to whether it sits one or two places higher than a neighbor. Coverage also shapes the order, since a country only appears here if it reports the relevant measure, so the list reflects the countries that publish data rather than every labor market in the world. Where you want the full statutory and practical context behind a position, open the individual country page, which lays out each source, the year it was published, and the caveats that apply to that figure.
| # | Country | Score (0-100) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Taiwan ๐น๐ผ | 81.4 |
| 2 | Malta ๐ฒ๐น | 79.0 |
| 3 | Canada ๐จ๐ฆ | 78.4 |
| 4 | Ireland ๐ฎ๐ช | 77.3 |
| 5 | Kazakhstan ๐ฐ๐ฟ | 75.1 |
| 6 | Croatia ๐ญ๐ท | 74.9 |
| 7 | Georgia ๐ฌ๐ช | 74.8 |
| 8 | South Korea ๐ฐ๐ท | 74.5 |
| 9 | Hong Kong ๐ญ๐ฐ | 74.4 |
| 10 | North Macedonia ๐ฒ๐ฐ | 74.0 |
| 11 | Serbia ๐ท๐ธ | 73.6 |
| 12 | Hungary ๐ญ๐บ | 73.5 |
| 13 | Tanzania ๐น๐ฟ | 73.4 |
| 14 | United Kingdom ๐ฌ๐ง | 73.4 |
| 15 | New Zealand ๐ณ๐ฟ | 72.9 |
| 16 | Bangladesh ๐ง๐ฉ | 72.9 |
| 17 | Moldova ๐ฒ๐ฉ | 72.1 |
| 18 | United States ๐บ๐ธ | 71.9 |
| 19 | Cambodia ๐ฐ๐ญ | 71.7 |
| 20 | Ghana ๐ฌ๐ญ | 71.5 |
| 21 | Turkmenistan ๐น๐ฒ | 71.4 |
| 22 | Cabo Verde ๐จ๐ป | 71.1 |
| 23 | Senegal ๐ธ๐ณ | 70.9 |
| 24 | Cote d'Ivoire ๐จ๐ฎ | 70.8 |
| 25 | Uzbekistan ๐บ๐ฟ | 70.5 |
| 26 | Philippines ๐ต๐ญ | 70.4 |
| 27 | Poland ๐ต๐ฑ | 70.3 |
| 28 | Mauritius ๐ฒ๐บ | 70.0 |
| 29 | Kyrgyz Republic ๐ฐ๐ฌ | 69.9 |
| 30 | Bosnia and Herzegovina ๐ง๐ฆ | 69.7 |
| 31 | Viet Nam ๐ป๐ณ | 69.6 |
| 32 | Peru ๐ต๐ช | 69.6 |
| 33 | Colombia ๐จ๐ด | 69.6 |
| 34 | Malaysia ๐ฒ๐พ | 69.4 |
| 35 | Angola ๐ฆ๐ด | 69.0 |
| 36 | Jamaica ๐ฏ๐ฒ | 68.8 |
| 37 | Lao PDR ๐ฑ๐ฆ | 68.8 |
| 38 | Spain ๐ช๐ธ | 68.3 |
| 39 | Czech Republic ๐จ๐ฟ | 68.0 |
| 40 | Slovenia ๐ธ๐ฎ | 67.7 |
| 41 | Portugal ๐ต๐น | 67.6 |
| 42 | Romania ๐ท๐ด | 67.5 |
| 43 | Slovakia ๐ธ๐ฐ | 67.2 |
| 44 | Estonia ๐ช๐ช | 67.2 |
| 45 | Turkey ๐น๐ท | 67.2 |
| 46 | Armenia ๐ฆ๐ฒ | 67.0 |
| 47 | Eswatini ๐ธ๐ฟ | 67.0 |
| 48 | Botswana ๐ง๐ผ | 66.9 |
| 49 | Sweden ๐ธ๐ช | 66.6 |
| 50 | Togo ๐น๐ฌ | 66.3 |
| 51 | Tajikistan ๐น๐ฏ | 66.3 |
| 52 | Belgium ๐ง๐ช | 66.2 |
| 53 | Namibia ๐ณ๐ฆ | 66.1 |
| 54 | Sierra Leone ๐ธ๐ฑ | 66.1 |
| 55 | Cyprus ๐จ๐พ | 66.0 |
| 56 | Barbados ๐ง๐ง | 65.9 |
| 57 | Trinidad and Tobago ๐น๐น | 65.9 |
| 58 | Bahrain ๐ง๐ญ | 65.8 |
| 59 | Greece ๐ฌ๐ท | 65.6 |
| 60 | Bulgaria ๐ง๐ฌ | 65.3 |
| 61 | Iceland ๐ฎ๐ธ | 65.2 |
| 62 | Latvia ๐ฑ๐ป | 64.9 |
| 63 | Samoa ๐ผ๐ธ | 64.0 |
| 64 | Costa Rica ๐จ๐ท | 64.0 |
| 65 | Azerbaijan ๐ฆ๐ฟ | 64.0 |
| 66 | Singapore ๐ธ๐ฌ | 64.0 |
| 67 | Pakistan ๐ต๐ฐ | 63.9 |
| 68 | Montenegro ๐ฒ๐ช | 63.5 |
| 69 | Italy ๐ฎ๐น | 63.1 |
| 70 | Jordan ๐ฏ๐ด | 62.6 |
| 71 | Rwanda ๐ท๐ผ | 62.4 |
| 72 | Nepal ๐ณ๐ต | 62.3 |
| 73 | El Salvador ๐ธ๐ป | 61.6 |
| 74 | West Bank and Gaza ๐ต๐ธ | 61.1 |
| 75 | Ecuador ๐ช๐จ | 61.0 |
| 76 | Seychelles ๐ธ๐จ | 60.7 |
| 77 | Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ | 60.5 |
| 78 | Indonesia ๐ฎ๐ฉ | 60.4 |
| 79 | Cameroon ๐จ๐ฒ | 60.1 |
| 80 | Paraguay ๐ต๐พ | 59.6 |
| 81 | Burkina Faso ๐ง๐ซ | 59.1 |
| 82 | Mexico ๐ฒ๐ฝ | 58.7 |
| 83 | Vanuatu ๐ป๐บ | 58.3 |
| 84 | Equatorial Guinea ๐ฌ๐ถ | 57.9 |
| 85 | Uruguay ๐บ๐พ | 57.6 |
| 86 | Mali ๐ฒ๐ฑ | 57.0 |
| 87 | Congo, Rep. ๐จ๐ฌ | 56.8 |
| 88 | Bhutan ๐ง๐น | 55.5 |
| 89 | Timor-Leste ๐น๐ฑ | 55.2 |
| 90 | Benin ๐ง๐ฏ | 54.7 |
| 91 | Lesotho ๐ฑ๐ธ | 54.4 |
| 92 | Papua New Guinea ๐ต๐ฌ | 54.0 |
| 93 | Tunisia ๐น๐ณ | 53.5 |
| 94 | Chad ๐น๐ฉ | 53.4 |
| 95 | Gambia ๐ฌ๐ฒ | 53.2 |
| 96 | Congo, Dem. Rep. ๐จ๐ฉ | 51.9 |
| 97 | Morocco ๐ฒ๐ฆ | 51.8 |
| 98 | Central African Republic ๐จ๐ซ | 51.5 |
| 99 | Madagascar ๐ฒ๐ฌ | 50.4 |
| 100 | Tonga ๐น๐ด | 49.2 |
| 101 | South Sudan ๐ธ๐ธ | 48.5 |
Source: World Bank B-READY. Scale: 0-100. Rankings use unique ranks (no ties, alphabetical tie-breaking).
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.
Primary sources: ILO EPLex, World Bank B-READY, OECD EPL.
Related
What to do with this
Use the b-ready labor regulation quality ranking as a comparison benchmark, not legal advice.
- Taiwan tops this ranking at 81.4, see its full statutory context, sources, and caveats on its own country page. Taiwan profile
- B-READY Labor Regulation Quality is one of 11 tracked metrics across three official sources, cross-check this ranking against the others before drawing a conclusion. See all rankings
- Rankings compress a lot of legal nuance into one number, compare two specific countries side by side to see where the underlying rules actually differ. Compare two countries
This ranking reflects the law as written, not how it is enforced or the facts of any individual case. For a real decision, confirm the current statute and consult a qualified employment lawyer, see our disclaimer.
PlainEmploy is rendered directly from the OECD Employment Protection Legislation indicators, the ILO EPLex database, and the World Bank B-READY labor pillar, no number is typed in by an editor. This ranking is computed directly from the underlying OECD/EPLex/B-READY tables, no figure is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of 2026-07-06.