Libya vs Sierra Leone: Trading across borders: Time to import: Documentary compliance (hours)

Libya
60.25
in 2019
Sierra Leone
66.11
in 2019
Libya rank
146th
Sierra Leone rank
143rd

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

  • Libya
  • Sierra Leone
0204060201420162019

How they compare

Sierra Leone currently reports 66.11 against 60.25 in Libya, a difference of 5.86.

That makes Sierra Leone's figure about 1.1 times Libya's.

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

Libya ranks 146th and Sierra Leone ranks 143rd of 188 countries.

Libya 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), Libya or Sierra Leone?
Sierra Leone, at 66.11 against 60.25 in Libya as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import: documentary compliance (hours) between Libya and Sierra Leone?
5.86, with Sierra Leone ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Libya and Sierra Leone?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Libya and Sierra Leone rank globally for trading across borders: time to import: documentary compliance (hours)?
Libya ranks 146th and Sierra Leone ranks 143rd 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.