Madagascar, Republic of vs Russian Federation: Trading across borders: Time to export: Border compliance (hours)
Madagascar, Republic of
56.72
in 2019
Russian Federation
59.12
in 2019
Madagascar, Republic of rank
131st
Russian Federation rank
128th
Trading across borders: Time to export: Border compliance (hours) over time
- Madagascar, Republic of
- Russian Federation
How they compare
Russian Federation currently reports 59.12 against 56.72 in Madagascar, Republic of, a difference of 2.4.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 6 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Russian Federation ahead.
Madagascar, Republic of ranks 131st and Russian Federation ranks 128th of 190 countries.
Russian Federation 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), Madagascar, Republic of or Russian Federation?
- Russian Federation, at 59.12 against 56.72 in Madagascar, Republic of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export: border compliance (hours) between Madagascar, Republic of and Russian Federation?
- 2.4, with Russian Federation ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Madagascar, Republic of and Russian Federation?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Madagascar, Republic of and Russian Federation rank globally for trading across borders: time to export: border compliance (hours)?
- Madagascar, Republic of ranks 131st and Russian Federation ranks 128th 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.