Armenia vs Latvia: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Armenia
66.67
in 2014
Latvia
66.67
in 2014
Armenia rank
44th
Latvia rank
44th

Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol over time

  • Armenia
  • Latvia
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Armenia currently reports 66.67 against 66.67 in Latvia, a difference of 0.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Latvia has been ahead every year.

Armenia ranks 44th and Latvia ranks 44th of 181 countries.

Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Armenia Latvia Difference Ahead
2000s 53.33 66.67 13.33 Latvia
2010s 66.67 66.67 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol, Armenia or Latvia?
Armenia, at 66.67 against 66.67 in Latvia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol between Armenia and Latvia?
0, with Armenia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Armenia and Latvia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Armenia and Latvia rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Armenia ranks 44th and Latvia ranks 44th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 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: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 1,813 data points, 2005–2014
Last refreshed

The score for the number of documents 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 DB06-15 studies.