Hong Kong (China) vs Latvia: Trading across borders (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Trading across borders (DB16-20 methodology) - Score over time
- Hong Kong (China)
- Latvia
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 95.26 against 95.04 in Hong Kong (China), a difference of 0.22.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Latvia has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong (China) ranks 29th and Latvia ranks 28th of 190 countries.
Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders (db16-20 methodology) - score, Hong Kong (China) or Latvia?
- Latvia, at 95.26 against 95.04 in Hong Kong (China) as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders (db16-20 methodology) - score between Hong Kong (China) and Latvia?
- 0.22, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong (China) and Latvia?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong (China) and Latvia rank globally for trading across borders (db16-20 methodology) - score?
- Hong Kong (China) ranks 29th and Latvia ranks 28th of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Doing Business measures the time and cost associated with three sets of procedures of exporting and importing goods —documentary compliance, border compliance and domestic transport—within the overall process of exporting or importing a shipment of goods. The score for trading across borders is the simple average of the scores for the time and cost for documentary compliance and border compliance to export and import. It is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.