Bulgaria vs Japan: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Bulgaria
76.92
in 2014
Japan
76.92
in 2014
Bulgaria rank
27th
Japan rank
27th

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

  • Bulgaria
  • Japan
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Bulgaria currently reports 76.92 against 76.92 in Japan, a difference of 0.

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

Bulgaria ranks 27th and Japan ranks 27th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Bulgaria Japan Difference Ahead
2000s 67.69 76.92 9.23 Japan
2010s 76.92 76.92 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, Bulgaria or Japan?
Bulgaria, at 76.92 against 76.92 in Japan as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Bulgaria and Japan?
0, with Bulgaria ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Bulgaria and Japan?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Bulgaria and Japan rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Bulgaria ranks 27th and Japan ranks 27th 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.