Bolivia, Plurinational State of vs Suriname: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD)
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
95.71
in 2019
Suriname
94.29
in 2019
Bolivia, Plurinational State of rank
35th
Suriname rank
38th
Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) over time
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of
- Suriname
How they compare
Bolivia, Plurinational State of currently reports 95.71 against 94.29 in Suriname, a difference of 1.42.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Bolivia, Plurinational State of has been ahead every year.
Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 35th and Suriname ranks 38th of 190 countries.
Bolivia, Plurinational State of has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd), Bolivia, Plurinational State of or Suriname?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of, at 95.71 against 94.29 in Suriname as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) between Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Suriname?
- 1.42, with Bolivia, Plurinational State of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Suriname?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Suriname rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd)?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 35th and Suriname ranks 38th of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to import: 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 import 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.