Kazakhstan vs Mongolia: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Kazakhstan
23.08
in 2014
Mongolia
23.08
in 2014
Kazakhstan rank
170th
Mongolia rank
170th

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

  • Kazakhstan
  • Mongolia
0510152025200520092014

How they compare

Kazakhstan currently reports 23.08 against 23.08 in Mongolia, a difference of 0.

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

Kazakhstan ranks 170th and Mongolia ranks 170th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Kazakhstan Mongolia Difference Ahead
2000s 15.38 23.08 7.69 Mongolia
2010s 23.08 23.08 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, Kazakhstan or Mongolia?
Kazakhstan, at 23.08 against 23.08 in Mongolia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Kazakhstan and Mongolia?
0, with Kazakhstan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Kazakhstan and Mongolia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Kazakhstan and Mongolia rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Kazakhstan ranks 170th and Mongolia 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.