Benin vs El Salvador: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Benin
61.54
in 2014
El Salvador
61.54
in 2014
Benin rank
78th
El Salvador rank
78th

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

  • Benin
  • El Salvador
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Benin currently reports 61.54 against 61.54 in El Salvador, a difference of 0.

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

Benin ranks 78th and El Salvador ranks 78th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Benin El Salvador Difference Ahead
2000s 46.15 52.31 6.15 El Salvador
2010s 50.77 61.54 10.77 El Salvador

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