Madagascar vs Palau: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Madagascar
46.15
in 2014
Palau
46.15
in 2014
Madagascar rank
127th
Palau rank
127th

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

  • Madagascar
  • Palau
01020304050200520092014

How they compare

Madagascar currently reports 46.15 against 46.15 in Palau, a difference of 0.

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

Madagascar ranks 127th and Palau ranks 127th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Madagascar Palau Difference Ahead
2000s 38.46 46.15 7.69 Palau
2010s 46.15 46.15 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, Madagascar or Palau?
Madagascar, at 46.15 against 46.15 in Palau as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Madagascar and Palau?
0, with Madagascar ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Madagascar and Palau?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Madagascar and Palau rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Madagascar ranks 127th and Palau ranks 127th 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.