Belarus vs Chile: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Belarus
81.25
in 2014
Chile
81.25
in 2014
Belarus rank
63rd
Chile rank
63rd

Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology) over time

  • Belarus
  • Chile
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Belarus currently reports 81.25 against 81.25 in Chile, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Chile ahead.

Belarus ranks 63rd and Chile ranks 63rd of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Belarus averaged higher in 1 and Chile in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Belarus Chile Difference Ahead
2000s 70.83 77.08 6.25 Chile
2010s 81.25 79.58 1.67 Belarus

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology), Belarus or Chile?
Belarus, at 81.25 against 81.25 in Chile as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Belarus and Chile?
0, with Belarus ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Chile?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Belarus and Chile rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Belarus ranks 63rd and Chile ranks 63rd of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (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: Time to export (days) (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 time 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 DB06-15 studies.