Denmark vs Hong Kong, China: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)
Denmark
98.39
in 2014
Hong Kong, China
98.39
in 2014
Denmark rank
2nd
Hong Kong, China rank
2nd
Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology) over time
- Denmark
- Hong Kong, China
How they compare
Denmark currently reports 98.39 against 98.39 in Hong Kong, China, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Denmark ahead.
Denmark ranks 2nd and Hong Kong, China ranks 2nd of 183 countries.
Denmark has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Denmark | Hong Kong, China | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 98.39 | 94.52 | 3.87 | Denmark |
| 2010s | 98.39 | 98.39 | 0 | — |
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), Denmark or Hong Kong, China?
- Denmark, at 98.39 against 98.39 in Hong Kong, China as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Denmark and Hong Kong, China?
- 0, with Denmark ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Denmark and Hong Kong, China?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Denmark and Hong Kong, China rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
- Denmark ranks 2nd and Hong Kong, China ranks 2nd of 183 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
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.