Australia vs Uruguay: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Australia
61.54
in 2014
Uruguay
61.54
in 2014
Australia rank
78th
Uruguay rank
78th

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

  • Australia
  • Uruguay
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Australia currently reports 61.54 against 61.54 in Uruguay, a difference of 0.

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

Australia ranks 78th and Uruguay ranks 78th of 181 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Uruguay Difference Ahead
2000s 61.54 61.54 0
2010s 61.54 61.54 0

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, Australia or Uruguay?
Australia, at 61.54 against 61.54 in Uruguay as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Australia and Uruguay?
0, with Australia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Uruguay?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Australia and Uruguay rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Australia ranks 78th and Uruguay ranks 78th 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.