Botswana vs Mali: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Botswana
50
in 2014
Mali
51.61
in 2014
Botswana rank
152nd
Mali rank
151st

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

  • Botswana
  • Mali
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Mali currently reports 51.61 against 50 in Botswana, a difference of 1.61.

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

Botswana ranks 152nd and Mali ranks 151st of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Botswana averaged higher in 1 and Mali in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Botswana Mali Difference Ahead
2000s 38.06 14.52 23.55 Botswana
2010s 45.48 50.32 4.84 Mali

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), Botswana or Mali?
Mali, at 51.61 against 50 in Botswana as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Botswana and Mali?
1.61, with Mali ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and Mali?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Botswana and Mali rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Botswana ranks 152nd and Mali ranks 151st 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.