Denmark vs Kosovo: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Denmark
92.31
in 2014
Kosovo
61.54
in 2014
Denmark rank
3rd
Kosovo rank
1st

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

  • Denmark
  • Kosovo
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Denmark currently reports 92.31 against 61.54 in Kosovo, a difference of 30.77.

That makes Denmark's figure about 1.5 times Kosovo's.

Across all 6 years both countries report, Denmark has been ahead every year.

Denmark ranks 3rd and Kosovo ranks 1st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Denmark Kosovo Difference Ahead
2000s 92.31 61.54 30.77 Denmark
2010s 92.31 61.54 30.77 Denmark

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, Denmark or Kosovo?
Denmark, at 92.31 against 61.54 in Kosovo as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Denmark and Kosovo?
30.77, with Denmark ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Denmark and Kosovo?
6 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2014.
How do Denmark and Kosovo rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Denmark ranks 3rd and Kosovo ranks 1st 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.