Botswana vs Hong Kong, China: Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score
Botswana
98.2%
in 2019
Hong Kong, China
98.3%
in 2019
Botswana rank
18th
Hong Kong, China rank
17th
Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score over time
- Botswana
- Hong Kong, China
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 98.3% against 98.2% in Botswana, a difference of 0.1%.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Hong Kong, China has been ahead every year.
Botswana ranks 18th and Hong Kong, China ranks 17th of 191 countries.
Hong Kong, China has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Botswana | Hong Kong, China | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 71.4% | 97.1% | 25.8% | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 92.3% | 98.0% | 5.7% | Hong Kong, China |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score, Botswana or Hong Kong, China?
- Hong Kong, China, at 98.3% against 98.2% in Botswana as of 2019.
- What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score between Botswana and Hong Kong, China?
- 0.1%, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and Hong Kong, China?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Botswana and Hong Kong, China rank globally for dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score?
- Botswana ranks 18th and Hong Kong, China ranks 17th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for cost 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.