Bolivia, Plurinational State of vs Dominican Republic: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD)
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
93.75
in 2019
Dominican Republic
96.25
in 2019
Bolivia, Plurinational State of rank
27th
Dominican Republic rank
24th
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) over time
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of
- Dominican Republic
How they compare
Dominican Republic currently reports 96.25 against 93.75 in Bolivia, Plurinational State of, a difference of 2.5.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Dominican Republic has been ahead every year.
Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 27th and Dominican Republic ranks 24th of 190 countries.
Dominican Republic 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), Bolivia, Plurinational State of or Dominican Republic?
- Dominican Republic, at 96.25 against 93.75 in Bolivia, Plurinational State of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) between Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Dominican Republic?
- 2.5, with Dominican Republic ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Dominican Republic?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Dominican Republic rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd)?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 27th and Dominican Republic ranks 24th 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.