Ghana vs Malawi: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Ghana
40.32
in 2014
Malawi
43.55
in 2014
Ghana rank
159th
Malawi rank
157th

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

  • Ghana
  • Malawi
01020304050200520092014

How they compare

Malawi currently reports 43.55 against 40.32 in Ghana, a difference of 3.23.

That makes Malawi's figure about 1.1 times Ghana's.

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

Ghana ranks 159th and Malawi ranks 157th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Ghana Malawi Difference Ahead
2000s 34.19 20.32 13.87 Ghana
2010s 42.26 37.1 5.16 Ghana

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), Ghana or Malawi?
Malawi, at 43.55 against 40.32 in Ghana as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Ghana and Malawi?
3.23, with Malawi ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ghana and Malawi?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Ghana and Malawi rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Ghana ranks 159th and Malawi ranks 157th 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.