Equatorial Guinea vs Ethiopia: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) … days DB06-15 import
Equatorial Guinea
35.48
in 2014
Ethiopia
35.48
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea rank
165th
Ethiopia rank
165th
Trading across borders: Time to import (days) … days DB06-15 import over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Ethiopia
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 35.48 against 35.48 in Ethiopia, a difference of 0.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Ethiopia has been ahead every year.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 165th and Ethiopia ranks 165th of 184 countries.
Ethiopia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Ethiopia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 36.77 | 39.35 | 2.58 | Ethiopia |
| 2010s | 35.48 | 35.48 | 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), Equatorial Guinea or Ethiopia?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 35.48 against 35.48 in Ethiopia as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Equatorial Guinea and Ethiopia?
- 0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Ethiopia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Ethiopia rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 165th and Ethiopia ranks 165th of 184 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.