Botswana vs Equatorial Guinea: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (

Botswana
90.48
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
90
in 2019
Botswana rank
63rd
Equatorial Guinea rank
66th

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

  • Botswana
  • Equatorial Guinea
020406080100201420162019

How they compare

Botswana currently reports 90.48 against 90 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.48.

Across all 6 years both countries report, Botswana has been ahead every year.

Botswana ranks 63rd and Equatorial Guinea ranks 66th of 188 countries.

Botswana 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) (, Botswana or Equatorial Guinea?
Botswana, at 90.48 against 90 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( between Botswana and Equatorial Guinea?
0.48, with Botswana ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and Equatorial Guinea?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Botswana and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) (?
Botswana ranks 63rd and Equatorial Guinea ranks 66th of 188 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

Indicator
Trading across borders: Cost to import: 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 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.