Equatorial Guinea vs Sao Tome and Principe: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15)
Equatorial Guinea
69.23
in 2014
Sao Tome and Principe
69.23
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea rank
50th
Sao Tome and Principe rank
50th
Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15) over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Sao Tome and Principe
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 69.23 against 69.23 in Sao Tome and Principe, a difference of 0.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Sao Tome and Principe has been ahead every year.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 50th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 50th of 184 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Sao Tome and Principe | 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), Equatorial Guinea or Sao Tome and Principe?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 69.23 against 69.23 in Sao Tome and Principe as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15) between Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15)?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 50th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 50th 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.