Micronesia (Federated States of) vs United States of America: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD)
Micronesia (Federated States of)
85
in 2019
United States of America
85
in 2019
Micronesia (Federated States of) rank
66th
United States of America rank
66th
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) over time
- Micronesia (Federated States of)
- United States of America
How they compare
Micronesia (Federated States of) currently reports 85 against 85 in United States of America, a difference of 0.
Across all 6 years both countries report, United States of America has been ahead every year.
Micronesia (Federated States of) ranks 66th and United States of America ranks 66th of 190 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd), Micronesia (Federated States of) or United States of America?
- Micronesia (Federated States of), at 85 against 85 in United States of America as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) between Micronesia (Federated States of) and United States of America?
- 0, with Micronesia (Federated States of) ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Micronesia (Federated States of) and United States of America?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Micronesia (Federated States of) and United States of America rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd)?
- Micronesia (Federated States of) ranks 66th and United States of America ranks 66th 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.