Georgia vs Malaysia: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Georgia
77.78
in 2014
Malaysia
77.78
in 2014
Georgia rank
16th
Malaysia rank
16th

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

  • Georgia
  • Malaysia
20406080200520092014

How they compare

Georgia currently reports 77.78 against 77.78 in Malaysia, a difference of 0.

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

Georgia ranks 16th and Malaysia ranks 16th of 181 countries.

Malaysia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Georgia Malaysia Difference Ahead
2000s 40 77.78 37.78 Malaysia
2010s 77.78 77.78 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, Georgia or Malaysia?
Georgia, at 77.78 against 77.78 in Malaysia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol between Georgia and Malaysia?
0, with Georgia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Georgia and Malaysia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Georgia and Malaysia rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Georgia ranks 16th and Malaysia ranks 16th 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.