Canada vs South Korea: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Canada
92.31
in 2014
South Korea
92.31
in 2014
Canada rank
3rd
South Korea rank
3rd

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

  • Canada
  • South Korea
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Canada currently reports 92.31 against 92.31 in South Korea, a difference of 0.

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

Canada ranks 3rd and South Korea ranks 3rd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Canada South Korea Difference Ahead
2000s 92.31 67.69 24.62 Canada
2010s 92.31 92.31 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, Canada or South Korea?
Canada, at 92.31 against 92.31 in South Korea as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Canada and South Korea?
0, with Canada ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Canada and South Korea?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Canada and South Korea rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Canada ranks 3rd and South Korea ranks 3rd 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.