Guinea vs Kazakhstan: Trading across borders: Time to export: Documentary compliance (hours)

Guinea
18.52
in 2019
Kazakhstan
24.85
in 2019
Guinea rank
171st
Kazakhstan rank
169th

Trading across borders: Time to export: Documentary compliance (hours) over time

  • Guinea
  • Kazakhstan
0510152025201420162019

How they compare

Kazakhstan currently reports 24.85 against 18.52 in Guinea, a difference of 6.33.

That makes Kazakhstan's figure about 1.3 times Guinea's.

Across all 6 years both countries report, Kazakhstan has been ahead every year.

Guinea ranks 171st and Kazakhstan ranks 169th of 188 countries.

Kazakhstan has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: time to export: documentary compliance (hours), Guinea or Kazakhstan?
Kazakhstan, at 24.85 against 18.52 in Guinea as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export: documentary compliance (hours) between Guinea and Kazakhstan?
6.33, with Kazakhstan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea and Kazakhstan?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Guinea and Kazakhstan rank globally for trading across borders: time to export: documentary compliance (hours)?
Guinea ranks 171st and Kazakhstan ranks 169th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Time to export: Documentary compliance (hours) (DB16-20 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: Documentary compliance (hours) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The score for the time for documentary compliance 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 DB16-20 studies.