Kazakhstan vs Zambia: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Kazakhstan
0
in 2014
Zambia
6.25
in 2014
Kazakhstan rank
173rd
Zambia rank
171st

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

  • Kazakhstan
  • Zambia
0246200520092014

How they compare

Zambia currently reports 6.25 against 0 in Kazakhstan, a difference of 6.25.

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

Kazakhstan ranks 173rd and Zambia ranks 171st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Kazakhstan Zambia Difference Ahead
2000s 0 2.08 2.08 Zambia
2010s 0 6.25 6.25 Zambia

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), Kazakhstan or Zambia?
Zambia, at 6.25 against 0 in Kazakhstan as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Kazakhstan and Zambia?
6.25, with Zambia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Kazakhstan and Zambia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Kazakhstan and Zambia rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Kazakhstan ranks 173rd and Zambia ranks 171st 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.