Chad vs Palestine, State of: Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score
Chad
5.9%
in 2019
Palestine, State of
36.5%
in 2019
Chad rank
176th
Palestine, State of rank
173rd
Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score over time
- Chad
- Palestine, State of
How they compare
Palestine, State of currently reports 36.5% against 5.9% in Chad, a difference of 30.6%.
That makes Palestine, State of's figure about 6.2 times Chad's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Palestine, State of ahead.
Chad ranks 176th and Palestine, State of ranks 173rd of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Chad averaged higher in 1 and Palestine, State of in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chad | Palestine, State of | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1.1% | 0.0% | 1.1% | Chad |
| 2010s | 11.4% | 12.2% | 0.7% | Palestine, State of |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score, Chad or Palestine, State of?
- Palestine, State of, at 36.5% against 5.9% in Chad as of 2019.
- What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score between Chad and Palestine, State of?
- 30.6%, with Palestine, State of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chad and Palestine, State of?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Chad and Palestine, State of rank globally for dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score?
- Chad ranks 176th and Palestine, State of ranks 173rd 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.