Philippines vs Togo: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Philippines
61.54
in 2014
Togo
61.54
in 2014
Philippines rank
78th
Togo rank
78th

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

  • Philippines
  • Togo
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Philippines currently reports 61.54 against 61.54 in Togo, a difference of 0.

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

Philippines ranks 78th and Togo ranks 78th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Philippines Togo Difference Ahead
2000s 53.85 56.92 3.08 Togo
2010s 61.54 61.54 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, Philippines or Togo?
Philippines, at 61.54 against 61.54 in Togo as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Philippines and Togo?
0, with Philippines ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Philippines and Togo?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Philippines and Togo rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Philippines ranks 78th and Togo ranks 78th 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.