South Africa vs Chinese Taipei: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15)
South Africa
69.23
in 2014
Chinese Taipei
69.23
in 2014
South Africa rank
50th
Chinese Taipei rank
50th
Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15) over time
- South Africa
- Chinese Taipei
How they compare
South Africa currently reports 69.23 against 69.23 in Chinese Taipei, a difference of 0.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Chinese Taipei has been ahead every year.
South Africa ranks 50th and Chinese Taipei ranks 50th of 183 countries.
Chinese Taipei has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | South Africa | Chinese Taipei | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 61.54 | 69.23 | 7.69 | Chinese Taipei |
| 2010s | 66.15 | 69.23 | 3.08 | Chinese Taipei |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15), South Africa or Chinese Taipei?
- South Africa, at 69.23 against 69.23 in Chinese Taipei as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15) between South Africa and Chinese Taipei?
- 0, with South Africa ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for South Africa and Chinese Taipei?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do South Africa and Chinese Taipei rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15)?
- South Africa ranks 50th and Chinese Taipei ranks 50th of 183 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.