Cape Verde vs Namibia: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Cape Verde
61.54
in 2014
Namibia
61.54
in 2014
Cape Verde rank
78th
Namibia rank
78th

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

  • Cape Verde
  • Namibia
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Cape Verde currently reports 61.54 against 61.54 in Namibia, a difference of 0.

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

Cape Verde ranks 78th and Namibia ranks 78th of 181 countries.

Head to head by decade

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