Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Republic of Korea: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
96.21
in 2019
Republic of Korea
96.18
in 2019
Bosnia and Herzegovina rank
32nd
Republic of Korea rank
33rd
Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) over time
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Republic of Korea
How they compare
Bosnia and Herzegovina currently reports 96.21 against 96.18 in Republic of Korea, a difference of 0.03.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Bosnia and Herzegovina has been ahead every year.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 32nd and Republic of Korea ranks 33rd of 191 countries.
Bosnia and Herzegovina 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), Bosnia and Herzegovina or Republic of Korea?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, at 96.21 against 96.18 in Republic of Korea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Korea?
- 0.03, with Bosnia and Herzegovina ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Korea?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Korea rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd)?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 32nd and Republic of Korea ranks 33rd of 191 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.