Sierra Leone vs Zimbabwe: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol
Sierra Leone
53.85
in 2014
Zimbabwe
53.85
in 2014
Sierra Leone rank
105th
Zimbabwe rank
105th
Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol over time
- Sierra Leone
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Sierra Leone currently reports 53.85 against 53.85 in Zimbabwe, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Sierra Leone ahead.
Sierra Leone ranks 105th and Zimbabwe ranks 105th of 181 countries.
Sierra Leone has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Sierra Leone | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 53.85 | 46.15 | 7.69 | Sierra Leone |
| 2010s | 53.85 | 50.77 | 3.08 | Sierra Leone |
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, Sierra Leone or Zimbabwe?
- Sierra Leone, at 53.85 against 53.85 in Zimbabwe as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe?
- 0, with Sierra Leone ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
- Sierra Leone ranks 105th and Zimbabwe ranks 105th 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.