Bolivia vs Samoa: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Bolivia
61.29
in 2014
Samoa
61.29
in 2014
Bolivia rank
131st
Samoa rank
131st

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

  • Bolivia
  • Samoa
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Bolivia currently reports 61.29 against 61.29 in Samoa, a difference of 0.

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

Bolivia ranks 131st and Samoa ranks 131st of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Bolivia averaged higher in 1 and Samoa in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Bolivia Samoa Difference Ahead
2000s 56.77 61.29 4.52 Samoa
2010s 67.42 61.29 6.13 Bolivia

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), Bolivia or Samoa?
Bolivia, at 61.29 against 61.29 in Samoa as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Bolivia and Samoa?
0, with Bolivia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia and Samoa?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Bolivia and Samoa rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Bolivia ranks 131st and Samoa ranks 131st 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.