Micronesia (country) vs Uganda: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) … days DB06-15 import
Micronesia (country)
56.45
in 2014
Uganda
56.45
in 2014
Micronesia (country) rank
147th
Uganda rank
147th
Trading across borders: Time to import (days) … days DB06-15 import over time
- Micronesia (country)
- Uganda
How they compare
Micronesia (country) currently reports 56.45 against 56.45 in Uganda, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Micronesia (country) ahead.
Micronesia (country) ranks 147th and Uganda ranks 147th of 184 countries.
Micronesia (country) has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Micronesia (country) | Uganda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 57.1 | 33.23 | 23.87 | Micronesia (country) |
| 2010s | 56.45 | 55.16 | 1.29 | Micronesia (country) |
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), Micronesia (country) or Uganda?
- Micronesia (country), at 56.45 against 56.45 in Uganda as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Micronesia (country) and Uganda?
- 0, with Micronesia (country) ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Micronesia (country) and Uganda?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Micronesia (country) and Uganda rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
- Micronesia (country) ranks 147th and Uganda ranks 147th of 184 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.