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

Chile
87.1
in 2014
Sri Lanka
85.48
in 2014
Chile rank
41st
Sri Lanka rank
43rd

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

  • Chile
  • Sri Lanka
020406080200520092014

How they compare

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

Across all 10 years both countries report, Chile has been ahead every year.

Chile ranks 41st and Sri Lanka ranks 43rd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Chile Sri Lanka Difference Ahead
2000s 80.65 70.32 10.32 Chile
2010s 84.84 78.39 6.45 Chile

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