North Macedonia vs Peru: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

North Macedonia
87.5
in 2014
Peru
87.5
in 2014
North Macedonia rank
41st
Peru rank
41st

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

  • North Macedonia
  • Peru
020406080200520092014

How they compare

North Macedonia currently reports 87.5 against 87.5 in Peru, a difference of 0.

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

North Macedonia ranks 41st and Peru ranks 41st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade North Macedonia Peru Difference Ahead
2000s 80 67.08 12.92 North Macedonia
2010s 87.5 87.5 0

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), North Macedonia or Peru?
North Macedonia, at 87.5 against 87.5 in Peru as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between North Macedonia and Peru?
0, with North Macedonia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for North Macedonia and Peru?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do North Macedonia and Peru rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
North Macedonia ranks 41st and Peru ranks 41st 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.