Jordan vs Sudan: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Jordan
61.54
in 2014
Sudan
61.54
in 2014
Jordan rank
78th
Sudan rank
78th

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

  • Jordan
  • Sudan
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Jordan currently reports 61.54 against 61.54 in Sudan, a difference of 0.

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

Jordan ranks 78th and Sudan ranks 78th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Jordan Sudan Difference Ahead
2000s 53.85 61.54 7.69 Sudan
2010s 61.54 61.54 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, Jordan or Sudan?
Jordan, at 61.54 against 61.54 in Sudan as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Jordan and Sudan?
0, with Jordan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Jordan and Sudan?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Jordan and Sudan rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Jordan ranks 78th and Sudan ranks 78th 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.