Ecuador vs Equatorial Guinea: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol
Ecuador
44.44
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea
44.44
in 2014
Ecuador rank
106th
Equatorial Guinea rank
106th
Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol over time
- Ecuador
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Ecuador currently reports 44.44 against 44.44 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Equatorial Guinea has been ahead every year.
Ecuador ranks 106th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 106th of 181 countries.
Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 37.78 | 44.44 | 6.67 | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 44.44 | 44.44 | 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, Ecuador or Equatorial Guinea?
- Ecuador, at 44.44 against 44.44 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol between Ecuador and Equatorial Guinea?
- 0, with Ecuador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Equatorial Guinea?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Ecuador and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol?
- Ecuador ranks 106th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 106th 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.