Sri Lanka vs Vanuatu: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Sri Lanka
61.54
in 2014
Vanuatu
61.54
in 2014
Sri Lanka rank
78th
Vanuatu rank
78th

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

  • Sri Lanka
  • Vanuatu
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Sri Lanka currently reports 61.54 against 61.54 in Vanuatu, a difference of 0.

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

Sri Lanka ranks 78th and Vanuatu ranks 78th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Sri Lanka Vanuatu Difference Ahead
2000s 52.31 61.54 9.23 Vanuatu
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, Sri Lanka or Vanuatu?
Sri Lanka, at 61.54 against 61.54 in Vanuatu as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Sri Lanka and Vanuatu?
0, with Sri Lanka ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Sri Lanka and Vanuatu?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Sri Lanka and Vanuatu rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Sri Lanka ranks 78th and Vanuatu 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.