Argentina vs Belarus: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Argentina
58.06
in 2014
Belarus
58.06
in 2014
Argentina rank
138th
Belarus rank
138th

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

  • Argentina
  • Belarus
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Argentina currently reports 58.06 against 58.06 in Belarus, a difference of 0.

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

Argentina ranks 138th and Belarus ranks 138th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Argentina Belarus Difference Ahead
2000s 76.13 48.39 27.74 Argentina
2010s 67.1 58.06 9.03 Argentina

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), Argentina or Belarus?
Argentina, at 58.06 against 58.06 in Belarus as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Argentina and Belarus?
0, with Argentina ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Argentina and Belarus?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Argentina and Belarus rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Argentina ranks 138th and Belarus ranks 138th 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.