Austria vs Georgia: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Austria
84.62
in 2014
Georgia
84.62
in 2014
Austria rank
11th
Georgia rank
11th

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

  • Austria
  • Georgia
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Austria currently reports 84.62 against 84.62 in Georgia, a difference of 0.

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

Austria ranks 11th and Georgia ranks 11th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Austria Georgia Difference Ahead
2000s 84.62 53.85 30.77 Austria
2010s 84.62 84.62 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, Austria or Georgia?
Austria, at 84.62 against 84.62 in Georgia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Austria and Georgia?
0, with Austria ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Austria and Georgia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Austria and Georgia rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Austria ranks 11th and Georgia ranks 11th 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.