Eritrea vs Malawi: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Eritrea
23.08
in 2014
Malawi
23.08
in 2014
Eritrea rank
170th
Malawi rank
170th

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

  • Eritrea
  • Malawi
0102030200520092014

How they compare

Eritrea currently reports 23.08 against 23.08 in Malawi, a difference of 0.

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

Eritrea ranks 170th and Malawi ranks 170th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Eritrea Malawi Difference Ahead
2000s 23.08 30.77 7.69 Malawi
2010s 23.08 24.62 1.54 Malawi

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, Eritrea or Malawi?
Eritrea, at 23.08 against 23.08 in Malawi as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Eritrea and Malawi?
0, with Eritrea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eritrea and Malawi?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Eritrea and Malawi rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Eritrea ranks 170th and Malawi ranks 170th 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.