Kyrgyzstan vs Republic of Moldova: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15)
Kyrgyzstan
30.77
in 2014
Republic of Moldova
30.77
in 2014
Kyrgyzstan rank
161st
Republic of Moldova rank
161st
Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15) over time
- Kyrgyzstan
- Republic of Moldova
How they compare
Kyrgyzstan currently reports 30.77 against 30.77 in Republic of Moldova, a difference of 0.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Republic of Moldova has been ahead every year.
Kyrgyzstan ranks 161st and Republic of Moldova ranks 161st of 183 countries.
Republic of Moldova has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kyrgyzstan | Republic of Moldova | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 6.15 | 30.77 | 24.62 | Republic of Moldova |
| 2010s | 30.77 | 30.77 | 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), Kyrgyzstan or Republic of Moldova?
- Kyrgyzstan, at 30.77 against 30.77 in Republic of Moldova as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15) between Kyrgyzstan and Republic of Moldova?
- 0, with Kyrgyzstan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kyrgyzstan and Republic of Moldova?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Kyrgyzstan and Republic of Moldova rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15)?
- Kyrgyzstan ranks 161st and Republic of Moldova ranks 161st of 183 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
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.