El Salvador vs Solomon Islands: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15)
El Salvador
44.44
in 2014
Solomon Islands
44.44
in 2014
El Salvador rank
107th
Solomon Islands rank
107th
Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15) over time
- El Salvador
- Solomon Islands
How they compare
El Salvador currently reports 44.44 against 44.44 in Solomon Islands, 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 Solomon Islands ranks 107th of 183 countries.
El Salvador has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | El Salvador | Solomon Islands | 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 Solomon Islands?
- El Salvador, at 44.44 against 44.44 in Solomon Islands as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15) between El Salvador and Solomon Islands?
- 0, with El Salvador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for El Salvador and Solomon Islands?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do El Salvador and Solomon Islands rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15)?
- El Salvador ranks 107th and Solomon Islands ranks 107th of 183 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.