Kuwait vs Laos: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Kuwait
38.46
in 2014
Laos
38.46
in 2014
Kuwait rank
146th
Laos rank
146th

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

  • Kuwait
  • Laos
010203040200520092014

How they compare

Kuwait currently reports 38.46 against 38.46 in Laos, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Kuwait ahead.

Kuwait ranks 146th and Laos ranks 146th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Kuwait Laos Difference Ahead
2000s 38.46 23.08 15.38 Kuwait
2010s 38.46 38.46 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, Kuwait or Laos?
Kuwait, at 38.46 against 38.46 in Laos as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Kuwait and Laos?
0, with Kuwait ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Kuwait and Laos?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Kuwait and Laos rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Kuwait ranks 146th and Laos ranks 146th 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.