Morocco vs Poland: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Morocco
83.87
in 2014
Poland
83.87
in 2014
Morocco rank
52nd
Poland rank
52nd

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

  • Morocco
  • Poland
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Morocco currently reports 83.87 against 83.87 in Poland, a difference of 0.

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

Morocco ranks 52nd and Poland ranks 52nd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Morocco Poland Difference Ahead
2000s 71.29 79.03 7.74 Poland
2010s 82.26 82.26 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), Morocco or Poland?
Morocco, at 83.87 against 83.87 in Poland as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Morocco and Poland?
0, with Morocco ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Morocco and Poland?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Morocco and Poland rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Morocco ranks 52nd and Poland ranks 52nd 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.