Argentina vs Guinea: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Argentina
53.85
in 2014
Guinea
53.85
in 2014
Argentina rank
105th
Guinea rank
105th

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

  • Argentina
  • Guinea
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Argentina currently reports 53.85 against 53.85 in Guinea, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Argentina ahead.

Argentina ranks 105th and Guinea ranks 105th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Argentina Guinea Difference Ahead
2000s 69.23 53.85 15.38 Argentina
2010s 58.46 53.85 4.62 Argentina

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol, Argentina or Guinea?
Argentina, at 53.85 against 53.85 in Guinea as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Argentina and Guinea?
0, with Argentina ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Argentina and Guinea?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Argentina and Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Argentina ranks 105th and Guinea ranks 105th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Documents to import (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 import (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 import 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.