Hong Kong, China vs Maldives: Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score
Hong Kong, China
98.3%
in 2019
Maldives
98.1%
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
17th
Maldives rank
19th
Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Maldives
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 98.3% against 98.1% in Maldives, a difference of 0.2%.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Maldives ahead.
Hong Kong, China ranks 17th and Maldives ranks 19th of 191 countries.
Maldives has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Maldives | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 97.1% | 98.3% | 1.1% | Maldives |
| 2010s | 98.0% | 98.4% | 0.4% | Maldives |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score, Hong Kong, China or Maldives?
- Hong Kong, China, at 98.3% against 98.1% in Maldives as of 2019.
- What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score between Hong Kong, China and Maldives?
- 0.2%, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Maldives?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Maldives rank globally for dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 17th and Maldives ranks 19th 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.