Eswatini vs Micronesia (country): Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score

Eswatini
88.72
in 2019
Micronesia (country)
87.79
in 2019
Eswatini rank
34th
Micronesia (country) rank
36th

Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score over time

  • Eswatini
  • Micronesia (country)
020406080200520122019

How they compare

Eswatini currently reports 88.72 against 87.79 in Micronesia (country), a difference of 0.93.

Across all 15 years both countries report, Eswatini has been ahead every year.

Eswatini ranks 34th and Micronesia (country) ranks 36th of 188 countries.

Eswatini has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Eswatini Micronesia (country) Difference Ahead
2000s 89.64 87.79 1.85 Eswatini
2010s 89 87.79 1.21 Eswatini

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score, Eswatini or Micronesia (country)?
Eswatini, at 88.72 against 87.79 in Micronesia (country) as of 2019.
What is the difference in paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score between Eswatini and Micronesia (country)?
0.93, with Eswatini ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Micronesia (country)?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Eswatini and Micronesia (country) rank globally for paying taxes: time (hours per year) - score?
Eswatini ranks 34th and Micronesia (country) ranks 36th 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

Indicator
Paying taxes: Time (hours per year) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 2,783 data points, 2005–2019
Last refreshed

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.