Lesotho vs Mali: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Lesotho
53.23
in 2014
Mali
51.61
in 2014
Lesotho rank
148th
Mali rank
151st

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

  • Lesotho
  • Mali
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Lesotho currently reports 53.23 against 51.61 in Mali, a difference of 1.62.

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

Lesotho ranks 148th and Mali ranks 151st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Lesotho Mali Difference Ahead
2000s 27.42 14.52 12.9 Lesotho
2010s 51.29 50.32 0.9677 Lesotho

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), Lesotho or Mali?
Lesotho, at 53.23 against 51.61 in Mali as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Lesotho and Mali?
1.62, with Lesotho ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Lesotho and Mali?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Lesotho and Mali rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Lesotho ranks 148th and Mali ranks 151st 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.