Cape Verde vs Kiribati: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Cape Verde
70.83
in 2014
Kiribati
70.83
in 2014
Cape Verde rank
104th
Kiribati rank
104th

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

  • Cape Verde
  • Kiribati
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Cape Verde currently reports 70.83 against 70.83 in Kiribati, a difference of 0.

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

Cape Verde ranks 104th and Kiribati ranks 104th of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Cape Verde averaged higher in 1 and Kiribati in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cape Verde Kiribati Difference Ahead
2000s 69.58 70 0.4166 Kiribati
2010s 72.5 70.83 1.67 Cape Verde

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), Cape Verde or Kiribati?
Cape Verde, at 70.83 against 70.83 in Kiribati as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Cape Verde and Kiribati?
0, with Cape Verde ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cape Verde and Kiribati?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Cape Verde and Kiribati rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Cape Verde ranks 104th and Kiribati ranks 104th 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.