East Timor vs Uganda: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

East Timor
54.17
in 2014
Uganda
54.17
in 2014
East Timor rank
145th
Uganda rank
145th

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

  • East Timor
  • Uganda
0204060200520092014

How they compare

East Timor currently reports 54.17 against 54.17 in Uganda, a difference of 0.

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

East Timor ranks 145th and Uganda ranks 145th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade East Timor Uganda Difference Ahead
2000s 54.17 37.92 16.25 East Timor
2010s 54.17 47.08 7.08 East Timor

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), East Timor or Uganda?
East Timor, at 54.17 against 54.17 in Uganda as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between East Timor and Uganda?
0, with East Timor ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for East Timor and Uganda?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do East Timor and Uganda rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
East Timor ranks 145th and Uganda ranks 145th 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.