Sao Tome and Principe vs Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Trading across borders: Time to export: Documentary compliance
Trading across borders: Time to export: Documentary compliance over time
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
How they compare
Sao Tome and Principe currently reports 73.22 against 72.19 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a difference of 1.03.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 6 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ahead.
Sao Tome and Principe ranks 111th and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 113th of 191 countries.
Sao Tome and Principe 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, Sao Tome and Principe or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- Sao Tome and Principe, at 73.22 against 72.19 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export: documentary compliance between Sao Tome and Principe and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 1.03, with Sao Tome and Principe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Sao Tome and Principe and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Sao Tome and Principe and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank globally for trading across borders: time to export: documentary compliance?
- Sao Tome and Principe ranks 111th and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 113th of 191 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
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.