Angola vs Ethiopia: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Angola
37.1
in 2014
Ethiopia
35.48
in 2014
Angola rank
160th
Ethiopia rank
162nd

Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology) over time

  • Angola
  • Ethiopia
10203040200520092014

How they compare

Angola currently reports 37.1 against 35.48 in Ethiopia, a difference of 1.62.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Ethiopia ahead.

Angola ranks 160th and Ethiopia ranks 162nd of 181 countries.

Ethiopia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Angola Ethiopia Difference Ahead
2000s 11.29 39.35 28.06 Ethiopia
2010s 33.87 35.48 1.61 Ethiopia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology), Angola or Ethiopia?
Angola, at 37.1 against 35.48 in Ethiopia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Angola and Ethiopia?
1.62, with Angola ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Angola and Ethiopia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Angola and Ethiopia rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Angola ranks 160th and Ethiopia ranks 162nd of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 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 import (days) (DB06-15 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 1,813 data points, 2005–2014
Last refreshed

The score for the time 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 DB06-15 studies.