Chile vs China: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Chile
76.92
in 2014
China
76.92
in 2014
Chile rank
27th
China rank
27th

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

  • Chile
  • China
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Chile currently reports 76.92 against 76.92 in China, a difference of 0.

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

Chile ranks 27th and China ranks 27th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Chile China Difference Ahead
2000s 76.92 70.77 6.15 Chile
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, Chile or China?
Chile, at 76.92 against 76.92 in China as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Chile and China?
0, with Chile ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and China?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Chile and China rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Chile ranks 27th and China 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.