Ecuador vs Micronesia (country): Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) (

Ecuador
85
in 2019
Micronesia (country)
85
in 2019
Ecuador rank
65th
Micronesia (country) rank
65th

Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) ( over time

  • Ecuador
  • Micronesia (country)
020406080201420162019

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 85 against 85 in Micronesia (country), a difference of 0.

Across all 6 years both countries report, Micronesia (country) has been ahead every year.

Ecuador ranks 65th and Micronesia (country) ranks 65th of 188 countries.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) (, Ecuador or Micronesia (country)?
Ecuador, at 85 against 85 in Micronesia (country) as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) ( between Ecuador and Micronesia (country)?
0, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Micronesia (country)?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Ecuador and Micronesia (country) rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) (?
Ecuador ranks 65th and Micronesia (country) ranks 65th of 188 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

Indicator
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

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.