Papua New Guinea vs Rwanda: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol
Papua New Guinea
46.15
in 2014
Rwanda
46.15
in 2014
Papua New Guinea rank
127th
Rwanda rank
127th
Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Rwanda
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 46.15 against 46.15 in Rwanda, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Papua New Guinea ahead.
Papua New Guinea ranks 127th and Rwanda ranks 127th of 181 countries.
Papua New Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Rwanda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 46.15 | 21.54 | 24.62 | Papua New Guinea |
| 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, Papua New Guinea or Rwanda?
- Papua New Guinea, at 46.15 against 46.15 in Rwanda as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Papua New Guinea and Rwanda?
- 0, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Rwanda?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Rwanda rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 127th and Rwanda 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
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.