Malawi vs Mauritania: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Malawi
43.55
in 2014
Mauritania
45.16
in 2014
Malawi rank
157th
Mauritania rank
155th

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

  • Malawi
  • Mauritania
01020304050200520092014

How they compare

Mauritania currently reports 45.16 against 43.55 in Malawi, a difference of 1.61.

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

Malawi ranks 157th and Mauritania ranks 155th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Malawi Mauritania Difference Ahead
2000s 20.32 41.94 21.61 Mauritania
2010s 37.1 44.52 7.42 Mauritania

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), Malawi or Mauritania?
Mauritania, at 45.16 against 43.55 in Malawi as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Malawi and Mauritania?
1.61, with Mauritania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Malawi and Mauritania?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Malawi and Mauritania rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Malawi ranks 157th and Mauritania ranks 155th 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.