Costa Rica vs United Arab Emirates: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15)
Costa Rica
76.92
in 2014
United Arab Emirates
76.92
in 2014
Costa Rica rank
27th
United Arab Emirates rank
27th
Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15) over time
- Costa Rica
- United Arab Emirates
How they compare
Costa Rica currently reports 76.92 against 76.92 in United Arab Emirates, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Costa Rica ahead.
Costa Rica ranks 27th and United Arab Emirates ranks 27th of 184 countries.
Costa Rica has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Costa Rica | United Arab Emirates | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 76.92 | 64.62 | 12.31 | Costa Rica |
| 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), Costa Rica or United Arab Emirates?
- Costa Rica, at 76.92 against 76.92 in United Arab Emirates as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15) between Costa Rica and United Arab Emirates?
- 0, with Costa Rica ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Costa Rica and United Arab Emirates?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Costa Rica and United Arab Emirates rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15)?
- Costa Rica ranks 27th and United Arab Emirates ranks 27th of 184 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
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.