Equatorial Guinea vs Guinea: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Equatorial Guinea
44.44
in 2014
Guinea
44.44
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea rank
106th
Guinea rank
106th

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

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Guinea
010203040200520092014

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 44.44 against 44.44 in Guinea, a difference of 0.

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

Equatorial Guinea ranks 106th and Guinea ranks 106th of 181 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Guinea Difference Ahead
2000s 44.44 44.44 0
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, Equatorial Guinea or Guinea?
Equatorial Guinea, at 44.44 against 44.44 in Guinea as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol between Equatorial Guinea and Guinea?
0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Guinea?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 106th and 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

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.