Japan vs Malaysia: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Japan
89.58
in 2014
Malaysia
89.58
in 2014
Japan rank
37th
Malaysia rank
37th

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

  • Japan
  • Malaysia
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Japan currently reports 89.58 against 89.58 in Malaysia, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Japan ahead.

Japan ranks 37th and Malaysia ranks 37th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Japan Malaysia Difference Ahead
2000s 89.58 85.42 4.17 Japan
2010s 89.58 87.92 1.67 Japan

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), Japan or Malaysia?
Japan, at 89.58 against 89.58 in Malaysia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Japan and Malaysia?
0, with Japan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Japan and Malaysia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Japan and Malaysia rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Japan ranks 37th and Malaysia ranks 37th 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.