Equatorial Guinea vs Samoa: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Equatorial Guinea
69.23
in 2014
Samoa
69.23
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea rank
49th
Samoa rank
49th

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

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Samoa
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 69.23 against 69.23 in Samoa, a difference of 0.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Samoa has been ahead every year.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 49th and Samoa ranks 49th of 181 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Samoa Difference Ahead
2000s 69.23 69.23 0
2010s 69.23 69.23 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, Equatorial Guinea or Samoa?
Equatorial Guinea, at 69.23 against 69.23 in Samoa as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Equatorial Guinea and Samoa?
0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Samoa?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Samoa rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 49th and Samoa ranks 49th 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.