Botswana vs North Macedonia: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol
Botswana
55.56
in 2014
North Macedonia
55.56
in 2014
Botswana rank
76th
North Macedonia rank
76th
Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol over time
- Botswana
- North Macedonia
How they compare
Botswana currently reports 55.56 against 55.56 in North Macedonia, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Botswana ahead.
Botswana ranks 76th and North Macedonia ranks 76th of 181 countries.
Botswana has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Botswana | North Macedonia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 55.56 | 48.89 | 6.67 | Botswana |
| 2010s | 55.56 | 55.56 | 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, Botswana or North Macedonia?
- Botswana, at 55.56 against 55.56 in North Macedonia as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol between Botswana and North Macedonia?
- 0, with Botswana ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and North Macedonia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Botswana and North Macedonia rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol?
- Botswana ranks 76th and North Macedonia ranks 76th 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
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.