Indonesia vs Kenya: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Indonesia
64.52
in 2014
Kenya
64.52
in 2014
Indonesia rank
121st
Kenya rank
121st

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

  • Indonesia
  • Kenya
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Indonesia currently reports 64.52 against 64.52 in Kenya, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Indonesia ahead.

Indonesia ranks 121st and Kenya ranks 121st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Indonesia Kenya Difference Ahead
2000s 62.9 46.13 16.77 Indonesia
2010s 65.81 65.81 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), Indonesia or Kenya?
Indonesia, at 64.52 against 64.52 in Kenya as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Indonesia and Kenya?
0, with Indonesia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Indonesia and Kenya?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Indonesia and Kenya rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Indonesia ranks 121st and Kenya ranks 121st 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.