Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Maldives: Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score
Bosnia and Herzegovina
44.05
in 2019
Maldives
47.22
in 2019
Bosnia and Herzegovina rank
175th
Maldives rank
172nd
Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score over time
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Maldives
How they compare
Maldives currently reports 47.22 against 44.05 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a difference of 3.17.
That makes Maldives's figure about 1.1 times Bosnia and Herzegovina's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Maldives ahead.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 175th and Maldives ranks 172nd of 191 countries.
Maldives has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Maldives | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 47.17 | 100 | 52.83 | Maldives |
| 2010s | 43.76 | 58.93 | 15.17 | Maldives |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Maldives?
- Maldives, at 47.22 against 44.05 in Bosnia and Herzegovina as of 2019.
- What is the difference in paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Maldives?
- 3.17, with Maldives ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Maldives?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Bosnia and Herzegovina and Maldives rank globally for paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 175th and Maldives ranks 172nd of 191 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.