El Salvador vs Taiwan, China: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)
El Salvador
90.32
in 2014
Taiwan, China
90.32
in 2014
El Salvador rank
30th
Taiwan, China rank
30th
Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology) over time
- El Salvador
- Taiwan, China
How they compare
El Salvador currently reports 90.32 against 90.32 in Taiwan, China, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Taiwan, China ahead.
El Salvador ranks 30th and Taiwan, China ranks 30th of 183 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, El Salvador averaged higher in 1 and Taiwan, China in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | El Salvador | Taiwan, China | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 74.84 | 87.1 | 12.26 | Taiwan, China |
| 2010s | 90.32 | 89.03 | 1.29 | El Salvador |
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), El Salvador or Taiwan, China?
- El Salvador, at 90.32 against 90.32 in Taiwan, China as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between El Salvador and Taiwan, China?
- 0, with El Salvador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for El Salvador and Taiwan, China?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do El Salvador and Taiwan, China rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
- El Salvador ranks 30th and Taiwan, China ranks 30th 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.