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

Poland
83.87
in 2014
Senegal
83.87
in 2014
Poland rank
52nd
Senegal rank
52nd

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

  • Poland
  • Senegal
020406080200520092014

How they compare

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

The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Poland ahead.

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

Across the 2 decades both report, Poland averaged higher in 1 and Senegal in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Poland Senegal Difference Ahead
2000s 79.03 69.35 9.68 Poland
2010s 82.26 82.58 0.3226 Senegal

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