Cambodia vs Maldives: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Cambodia
46.15
in 2014
Maldives
46.15
in 2014
Cambodia rank
127th
Maldives rank
127th

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

  • Cambodia
  • Maldives
01020304050200520092014

How they compare

Cambodia currently reports 46.15 against 46.15 in Maldives, a difference of 0.

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

Cambodia ranks 127th and Maldives ranks 127th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Cambodia Maldives Difference Ahead
2000s 36.92 46.15 9.23 Maldives
2010s 46.15 46.15 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, Cambodia or Maldives?
Cambodia, at 46.15 against 46.15 in Maldives as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Cambodia and Maldives?
0, with Cambodia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cambodia and Maldives?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Cambodia and Maldives rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Cambodia ranks 127th and Maldives ranks 127th 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.