Cape Verde vs Micronesia, Federated States of: Trading across borders: Time to import: Border compliance (hours)
Cape Verde
78.85
in 2019
Micronesia, Federated States of
80.29
in 2019
Cape Verde rank
102nd
Micronesia, Federated States of rank
99th
Trading across borders: Time to import: Border compliance (hours) over time
- Cape Verde
- Micronesia, Federated States of
How they compare
Micronesia, Federated States of currently reports 80.29 against 78.85 in Cape Verde, a difference of 1.44.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Micronesia, Federated States of has been ahead every year.
Cape Verde ranks 102nd and Micronesia, Federated States of ranks 99th of 190 countries.
Micronesia, Federated States of has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: time to import: border compliance (hours), Cape Verde or Micronesia, Federated States of?
- Micronesia, Federated States of, at 80.29 against 78.85 in Cape Verde as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import: border compliance (hours) between Cape Verde and Micronesia, Federated States of?
- 1.44, with Micronesia, Federated States of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cape Verde and Micronesia, Federated States of?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Cape Verde and Micronesia, Federated States of rank globally for trading across borders: time to import: border compliance (hours)?
- Cape Verde ranks 102nd and Micronesia, Federated States of ranks 99th of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Time to import: Border 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 border compliance to import 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.