Egypt, Arab Rep. vs Fiji: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Egypt, Arab Rep.
33.33
in 2014
Fiji
33.33
in 2014
Egypt, Arab Rep. rank
136th
Fiji rank
136th

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

  • Egypt, Arab Rep.
  • Fiji
0102030200520092014

How they compare

Egypt, Arab Rep. currently reports 33.33 against 33.33 in Fiji, a difference of 0.

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

Egypt, Arab Rep. ranks 136th and Fiji ranks 136th of 181 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Egypt, Arab Rep. Fiji Difference Ahead
2000s 33.33 33.33 0
2010s 33.33 33.33 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, Egypt, Arab Rep. or Fiji?
Egypt, Arab Rep., at 33.33 against 33.33 in Fiji as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol between Egypt, Arab Rep. and Fiji?
0, with Egypt, Arab Rep. ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Egypt, Arab Rep. and Fiji?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Egypt, Arab Rep. and Fiji rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Egypt, Arab Rep. ranks 136th and Fiji ranks 136th 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.