Micronesia, Federated States of vs United Arab Emirates: Trading across borders: Time to import: Border compliance (hours)
Micronesia, Federated States of
80.29
in 2019
United Arab Emirates
81
in 2019
Micronesia, Federated States of rank
100th
United Arab Emirates rank
97th
Trading across borders: Time to import: Border compliance (hours) over time
- Micronesia, Federated States of
- United Arab Emirates
How they compare
United Arab Emirates currently reports 81 against 80.29 in Micronesia, Federated States of, a difference of 0.71.
Across all 6 years both countries report, United Arab Emirates has been ahead every year.
Micronesia, Federated States of ranks 100th and United Arab Emirates ranks 97th of 191 countries.
United Arab Emirates 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), Micronesia, Federated States of or United Arab Emirates?
- United Arab Emirates, at 81 against 80.29 in Micronesia, Federated States of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import: border compliance (hours) between Micronesia, Federated States of and United Arab Emirates?
- 0.71, with United Arab Emirates ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Micronesia, Federated States of and United Arab Emirates?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Micronesia, Federated States of and United Arab Emirates rank globally for trading across borders: time to import: border compliance (hours)?
- Micronesia, Federated States of ranks 100th and United Arab Emirates ranks 97th of 191 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.