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

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

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

  • Ghana
  • Nepal
01020304050200520092014

How they compare

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

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

Across all 10 years both countries report, Nepal has been ahead every year.

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

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Ghana Nepal Difference Ahead
2000s 34.19 50 15.81 Nepal
2010s 42.26 46.45 4.19 Nepal

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 Nepal?
Nepal, 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 Nepal?
3.23, with Nepal ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ghana and Nepal?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Ghana and Nepal rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Ghana ranks 159th and Nepal 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.