Kuwait vs Poland: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Kuwait
81.25
in 2014
Poland
81.25
in 2014
Kuwait rank
63rd
Poland rank
63rd

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

  • Kuwait
  • Poland
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Kuwait currently reports 81.25 against 81.25 in Poland, a difference of 0.

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

Kuwait ranks 63rd and Poland ranks 63rd of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Kuwait averaged higher in 1 and Poland in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Kuwait Poland Difference Ahead
2000s 76.25 77.08 0.8333 Poland
2010s 81.25 77.92 3.33 Kuwait

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), Kuwait or Poland?
Kuwait, at 81.25 against 81.25 in Poland as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Kuwait and Poland?
0, with Kuwait ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Kuwait and Poland?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Kuwait and Poland rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Kuwait ranks 63rd and Poland 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.