Kiribati vs Madagascar: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Kiribati
72.58
in 2014
Madagascar
72.58
in 2014
Kiribati rank
97th
Madagascar rank
97th

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

  • Kiribati
  • Madagascar
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Kiribati currently reports 72.58 against 72.58 in Madagascar, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Kiribati ahead.

Kiribati ranks 97th and Madagascar ranks 97th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Kiribati Madagascar Difference Ahead
2000s 72.58 44.19 28.39 Kiribati
2010s 72.58 69.68 2.9 Kiribati

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), Kiribati or Madagascar?
Kiribati, at 72.58 against 72.58 in Madagascar as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Kiribati and Madagascar?
0, with Kiribati ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Kiribati and Madagascar?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Kiribati and Madagascar rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Kiribati ranks 97th and Madagascar ranks 97th 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.