Bangladesh vs Equatorial Guinea: Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score
Bangladesh
40.34
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
31.53
in 2019
Bangladesh rank
175th
Equatorial Guinea rank
178th
Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score over time
- Bangladesh
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Bangladesh currently reports 40.34 against 31.53 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 8.81.
That makes Bangladesh's figure about 1.3 times Equatorial Guinea's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Bangladesh ranks 175th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 178th of 188 countries.
Bangladesh has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bangladesh | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 33.26 | 31.53 | 1.73 | Bangladesh |
| 2010s | 41.55 | 31.53 | 10.02 | Bangladesh |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score, Bangladesh or Equatorial Guinea?
- Bangladesh, at 40.34 against 31.53 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score between Bangladesh and Equatorial Guinea?
- 8.81, with Bangladesh ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bangladesh and Equatorial Guinea?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Bangladesh and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score?
- Bangladesh ranks 175th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 178th of 188 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
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.