Namibia vs Tanzania: Trading across borders: Time to export: Documentary compliance (hours)

Namibia
47.34
in 2019
Tanzania
43.79
in 2019
Namibia rank
160th
Tanzania rank
161st

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

  • Namibia
  • Tanzania
01020304050201420162019

How they compare

Namibia currently reports 47.34 against 43.79 in Tanzania, a difference of 3.55.

That makes Namibia's figure about 1.1 times Tanzania's.

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

Namibia ranks 160th and Tanzania ranks 161st of 188 countries.

Namibia 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), Namibia or Tanzania?
Namibia, at 47.34 against 43.79 in Tanzania as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export: documentary compliance (hours) between Namibia and Tanzania?
3.55, with Namibia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Namibia and Tanzania?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Namibia and Tanzania rank globally for trading across borders: time to export: documentary compliance (hours)?
Namibia ranks 160th and Tanzania ranks 161st 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.