Namibia vs Russian Federation: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)
Namibia
74.19
in 2014
Russian Federation
75.16
in 2014
Namibia rank
91st
Russian Federation rank
90th
Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology) over time
- Namibia
- Russian Federation
How they compare
Russian Federation currently reports 75.16 against 74.19 in Namibia, a difference of 0.97.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Namibia ahead.
Namibia ranks 91st and Russian Federation ranks 90th of 181 countries.
Namibia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Namibia | Russian Federation | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 74.19 | 69.35 | 4.84 | Namibia |
| 2010s | 74.19 | 71.35 | 2.84 | Namibia |
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), Namibia or Russian Federation?
- Russian Federation, at 75.16 against 74.19 in Namibia as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Namibia and Russian Federation?
- 0.97, with Russian Federation ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Namibia and Russian Federation?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Namibia and Russian Federation rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
- Namibia ranks 91st and Russian Federation ranks 90th 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
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.