Rwanda vs Yemen, Rep.: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Rwanda
46.15
in 2014
Yemen, Rep.
46.15
in 2014
Rwanda rank
127th
Yemen, Rep. rank
127th

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

  • Rwanda
  • Yemen, Rep.
01020304050200520092014

How they compare

Rwanda currently reports 46.15 against 46.15 in Yemen, Rep., a difference of 0.

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

Rwanda ranks 127th and Yemen, Rep. ranks 127th of 181 countries.

Yemen, Rep. has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Rwanda Yemen, Rep. Difference Ahead
2000s 21.54 46.15 24.62 Yemen, Rep.
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, Rwanda or Yemen, Rep.?
Rwanda, at 46.15 against 46.15 in Yemen, Rep. as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Rwanda and Yemen, Rep.?
0, with Rwanda ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Rwanda and Yemen, Rep.?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Rwanda and Yemen, Rep. rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Rwanda ranks 127th and Yemen, Rep. 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.