Equatorial Guinea vs Solomon Islands: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol
Equatorial Guinea
44.44
in 2014
Solomon Islands
44.44
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea rank
106th
Solomon Islands rank
106th
Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Solomon Islands
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 44.44 against 44.44 in Solomon Islands, a difference of 0.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Solomon Islands has been ahead every year.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 106th and Solomon Islands ranks 106th of 181 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Solomon Islands | 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 Solomon Islands?
- Equatorial Guinea, 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 methodol between Equatorial Guinea and Solomon Islands?
- 0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Solomon Islands?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Solomon Islands rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 106th and Solomon Islands 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.