Marshall Islands vs Zambia: Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score
Marshall Islands
89.2%
in 2019
Zambia
88.4%
in 2019
Marshall Islands rank
87th
Zambia rank
90th
Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score over time
- Marshall Islands
- Zambia
How they compare
Marshall Islands currently reports 89.2% against 88.4% in Zambia, a difference of 0.8%.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Marshall Islands has been ahead every year.
Marshall Islands ranks 87th and Zambia ranks 90th of 191 countries.
Marshall Islands has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Marshall Islands | Zambia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 95.4% | 53.9% | 41.5% | Marshall Islands |
| 2010s | 90.0% | 80.2% | 9.9% | Marshall Islands |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score, Marshall Islands or Zambia?
- Marshall Islands, at 89.2% against 88.4% in Zambia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score between Marshall Islands and Zambia?
- 0.8%, with Marshall Islands ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Marshall Islands and Zambia?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Marshall Islands and Zambia rank globally for dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score?
- Marshall Islands ranks 87th and Zambia ranks 90th 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.