Australia vs Micronesia (country): Trading across borders: Time to export: Border compliance (hours) (DB1

Australia
78.3
in 2019
Micronesia (country)
77.99
in 2019
Australia rank
78th
Micronesia (country) rank
79th

Trading across borders: Time to export: Border compliance (hours) (DB1 over time

  • Australia
  • Micronesia (country)
020406080201420162019

How they compare

Australia currently reports 78.3 against 77.99 in Micronesia (country), a difference of 0.31.

Across all 6 years both countries report, Australia has been ahead every year.

Australia ranks 78th and Micronesia (country) ranks 79th of 188 countries.

Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: time to export: border compliance (hours) (db1, Australia or Micronesia (country)?
Australia, at 78.3 against 77.99 in Micronesia (country) as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export: border compliance (hours) (db1 between Australia and Micronesia (country)?
0.31, with Australia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Micronesia (country)?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Australia and Micronesia (country) rank globally for trading across borders: time to export: border compliance (hours) (db1?
Australia ranks 78th and Micronesia (country) ranks 79th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Time to export: Border compliance (hours) (DB16-20 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: Time to export: Border compliance (hours) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The score for the time for border compliance to export 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 DB16-20 studies.