Philippines vs Uganda: Trading across borders: Time to import: Documentary compliance (hours)

Philippines
60.25
in 2019
Uganda
60.25
in 2019
Philippines rank
146th
Uganda rank
146th

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

  • Philippines
  • Uganda
0204060201420162019

How they compare

Philippines currently reports 60.25 against 60.25 in Uganda, a difference of 0.

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

Philippines ranks 146th and Uganda ranks 146th of 188 countries.

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