Lithuania vs Spain: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Lithuania
91.67
in 2014
Spain
91.67
in 2014
Lithuania rank
24th
Spain rank
24th

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

  • Lithuania
  • Spain
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Lithuania currently reports 91.67 against 91.67 in Spain, a difference of 0.

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

Lithuania ranks 24th and Spain ranks 24th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Lithuania Spain Difference Ahead
2000s 91.67 91.67 0
2010s 92.5 91.67 0.8333 Lithuania

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), Lithuania or Spain?
Lithuania, at 91.67 against 91.67 in Spain as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Lithuania and Spain?
0, with Lithuania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and Spain?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Lithuania and Spain rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Lithuania ranks 24th and Spain ranks 24th 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.