Luxembourg vs United Arab Emirates: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)
Luxembourg
95.16
in 2014
United Arab Emirates
95.16
in 2014
Luxembourg rank
10th
United Arab Emirates rank
10th
Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology) over time
- Luxembourg
- United Arab Emirates
How they compare
Luxembourg currently reports 95.16 against 95.16 in United Arab Emirates, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Luxembourg ahead.
Luxembourg ranks 10th and United Arab Emirates ranks 10th of 183 countries.
Luxembourg has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Luxembourg | United Arab Emirates | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 95.16 | 91.94 | 3.23 | Luxembourg |
| 2010s | 95.16 | 95.16 | 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), Luxembourg or United Arab Emirates?
- Luxembourg, at 95.16 against 95.16 in United Arab Emirates as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Luxembourg and United Arab Emirates?
- 0, with Luxembourg ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Luxembourg and United Arab Emirates?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2014.
- How do Luxembourg and United Arab Emirates rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
- Luxembourg ranks 10th and United Arab Emirates ranks 10th of 183 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
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.