Chile vs Romania: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Chile
87.1
in 2014
Romania
85.48
in 2014
Chile rank
41st
Romania rank
43rd

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

  • Chile
  • Romania
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Chile currently reports 87.1 against 85.48 in Romania, a difference of 1.62.

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

Chile ranks 41st and Romania ranks 43rd of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Chile averaged higher in 1 and Romania in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Chile Romania Difference Ahead
2000s 80.65 80.65 0 Chile
2010s 84.84 85.48 0.6452 Romania

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), Chile or Romania?
Chile, at 87.1 against 85.48 in Romania as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Chile and Romania?
1.62, with Chile ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Romania?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Chile and Romania rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Chile ranks 41st and Romania ranks 43rd 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.