France vs Latvia: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

France
88.71
in 2014
Latvia
88.71
in 2014
France rank
36th
Latvia rank
36th

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

  • France
  • Latvia
020406080200520092014

How they compare

France currently reports 88.71 against 88.71 in Latvia, a difference of 0.

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

France ranks 36th and Latvia ranks 36th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade France Latvia Difference Ahead
2000s 85.16 87.1 1.94 Latvia
2010s 88.71 88.71 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), France or Latvia?
France, at 88.71 against 88.71 in Latvia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between France and Latvia?
0, with France ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for France and Latvia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do France and Latvia rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
France ranks 36th and Latvia ranks 36th 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.