Korea, Rep. vs Panama: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Korea, Rep.
92.31
in 2014
Panama
92.31
in 2014
Korea, Rep. rank
3rd
Panama rank
3rd

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

  • Korea, Rep.
  • Panama
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Korea, Rep. currently reports 92.31 against 92.31 in Panama, a difference of 0.

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

Korea, Rep. ranks 3rd and Panama ranks 3rd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Korea, Rep. Panama Difference Ahead
2000s 67.69 92.31 24.62 Panama
2010s 92.31 92.31 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, Korea, Rep. or Panama?
Korea, Rep., at 92.31 against 92.31 in Panama as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Korea, Rep. and Panama?
0, with Korea, Rep. ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Korea, Rep. and Panama?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Korea, Rep. and Panama rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Korea, Rep. ranks 3rd and Panama ranks 3rd 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.