Georgia vs Sweden: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Georgia
93.75
in 2014
Sweden
93.75
in 2014
Georgia rank
17th
Sweden rank
17th

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

  • Georgia
  • Sweden
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Georgia currently reports 93.75 against 93.75 in Sweden, a difference of 0.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Sweden has been ahead every year.

Georgia ranks 17th and Sweden ranks 17th of 181 countries.

Sweden has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Georgia Sweden Difference Ahead
2000s 70.83 93.75 22.92 Sweden
2010s 92.92 93.75 0.8333 Sweden

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), Georgia or Sweden?
Georgia, at 93.75 against 93.75 in Sweden as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Georgia and Sweden?
0, with Georgia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Georgia and Sweden?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Georgia and Sweden rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Georgia ranks 17th and Sweden ranks 17th 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.