Latvia vs Seychelles: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Latvia
76.92
in 2014
Seychelles
76.92
in 2014
Latvia rank
27th
Seychelles rank
27th

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

  • Latvia
  • Seychelles
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Latvia currently reports 76.92 against 76.92 in Seychelles, a difference of 0.

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

Latvia ranks 27th and Seychelles ranks 27th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Latvia Seychelles Difference Ahead
2000s 72.31 76.92 4.62 Seychelles
2010s 72.31 76.92 4.62 Seychelles

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, Latvia or Seychelles?
Latvia, at 76.92 against 76.92 in Seychelles as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Latvia and Seychelles?
0, with Latvia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Seychelles?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Latvia and Seychelles rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Latvia ranks 27th and Seychelles ranks 27th 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.