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

Belarus
58.06
in 2014
Palau
58.06
in 2014
Belarus rank
138th
Palau rank
138th

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

  • Belarus
  • Palau
0204060200520092014

How they compare

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

The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Palau ahead.

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

Across the 2 decades both report, Belarus averaged higher in 1 and Palau in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Belarus Palau Difference Ahead
2000s 48.39 53.23 4.84 Palau
2010s 58.06 56.77 1.29 Belarus

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