Japan vs United States: Trading across borders: Documents to export (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Japan
88.89
in 2014
United States
88.89
in 2014
Japan rank
3rd
United States rank
3rd

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

  • Japan
  • United States
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Japan currently reports 88.89 against 88.89 in United States, a difference of 0.

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

Japan ranks 3rd and United States ranks 3rd of 181 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Japan United States Difference Ahead
2000s 88.89 88.89 0
2010s 88.89 88.89 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, Japan or United States?
Japan, at 88.89 against 88.89 in United States as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol between Japan and United States?
0, with Japan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Japan and United States?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Japan and United States rank globally for trading across borders: documents to export (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Japan ranks 3rd and United States ranks 3rd 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.