Chad vs Nepal: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Chad
30.77
in 2014
Nepal
30.77
in 2014
Chad rank
159th
Nepal rank
159th

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

  • Chad
  • Nepal
010203040200520092014

How they compare

Chad currently reports 30.77 against 30.77 in Nepal, a difference of 0.

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

Chad ranks 159th and Nepal ranks 159th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Chad Nepal Difference Ahead
2000s 38.46 30.77 7.69 Chad
2010s 35.38 30.77 4.62 Chad

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, Chad or Nepal?
Chad, at 30.77 against 30.77 in Nepal as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Chad and Nepal?
0, with Chad ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chad and Nepal?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Chad and Nepal rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Chad ranks 159th and Nepal ranks 159th 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.