El Salvador vs Papua New Guinea: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15)
El Salvador
44.44
in 2014
Papua New Guinea
44.44
in 2014
El Salvador rank
107th
Papua New Guinea rank
107th
Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15) over time
- El Salvador
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
El Salvador currently reports 44.44 against 44.44 in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was El Salvador ahead.
El Salvador ranks 107th and Papua New Guinea ranks 107th of 184 countries.
El Salvador has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | El Salvador | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 48.89 | 44.44 | 4.44 | El Salvador |
| 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), El Salvador or Papua New Guinea?
- El Salvador, at 44.44 against 44.44 in Papua New Guinea as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15) between El Salvador and Papua New Guinea?
- 0, with El Salvador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for El Salvador and Papua New Guinea?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do El Salvador and Papua New Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15)?
- El Salvador ranks 107th and Papua New Guinea ranks 107th of 184 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.