Australia vs Tanzania, United Republic of: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD)
Australia
34
in 2019
Tanzania, United Republic of
31.25
in 2019
Australia rank
170th
Tanzania, United Republic of rank
171st
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) over time
- Australia
- Tanzania, United Republic of
How they compare
Australia currently reports 34 against 31.25 in Tanzania, United Republic of, a difference of 2.75.
That makes Australia's figure about 1.1 times Tanzania, United Republic of's.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Australia has been ahead every year.
Australia ranks 170th and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 171st of 190 countries.
Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd), Australia or Tanzania, United Republic of?
- Australia, at 34 against 31.25 in Tanzania, United Republic of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) between Australia and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 2.75, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Australia and Tanzania, United Republic of rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd)?
- Australia ranks 170th and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 171st of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for the cost for documentary compliance to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.