Congo vs Ethiopia: Trading across borders: Time to import: Documentary compliance (hours)

Congo
13.39
in 2019
Ethiopia
19.25
in 2019
Congo rank
180th
Ethiopia rank
179th

Trading across borders: Time to import: Documentary compliance (hours) over time

  • Congo
  • Ethiopia
05101520201420162019

How they compare

Ethiopia currently reports 19.25 against 13.39 in Congo, a difference of 5.86.

That makes Ethiopia's figure about 1.4 times Congo's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 6 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Congo ahead.

Congo ranks 180th and Ethiopia ranks 179th of 188 countries.

Ethiopia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: time to import: documentary compliance (hours), Congo or Ethiopia?
Ethiopia, at 19.25 against 13.39 in Congo as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import: documentary compliance (hours) between Congo and Ethiopia?
5.86, with Ethiopia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Congo and Ethiopia?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Congo and Ethiopia rank globally for trading across borders: time to import: documentary compliance (hours)?
Congo ranks 180th and Ethiopia ranks 179th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Time to import: Documentary compliance (hours) (DB16-20 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: Documentary compliance (hours) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The score for the time for documentary compliance 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 DB16-20 studies.