Belarus, Republic of vs North Macedonia, Republic of: Trading across borders: Time to export: Border compliance (hours)
Belarus, Republic of
96.01
in 2019
North Macedonia, Republic of
95.28
in 2019
Belarus, Republic of rank
40th
North Macedonia, Republic of rank
42nd
Trading across borders: Time to export: Border compliance (hours) over time
- Belarus, Republic of
- North Macedonia, Republic of
How they compare
Belarus, Republic of currently reports 96.01 against 95.28 in North Macedonia, Republic of, a difference of 0.73.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Belarus, Republic of has been ahead every year.
Belarus, Republic of ranks 40th and North Macedonia, Republic of ranks 42nd of 190 countries.
Belarus, Republic of 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), Belarus, Republic of or North Macedonia, Republic of?
- Belarus, Republic of, at 96.01 against 95.28 in North Macedonia, Republic of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export: border compliance (hours) between Belarus, Republic of and North Macedonia, Republic of?
- 0.73, with Belarus, Republic of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus, Republic of and North Macedonia, Republic of?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Belarus, Republic of and North Macedonia, Republic of rank globally for trading across borders: time to export: border compliance (hours)?
- Belarus, Republic of ranks 40th and North Macedonia, Republic of ranks 42nd of 190 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
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.