Mongolia vs Trinidad and Tobago: Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score
Mongolia
99.5%
in 2019
Trinidad and Tobago
99.6%
in 2019
Mongolia rank
3rd
Trinidad and Tobago rank
2nd
Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score over time
- Mongolia
- Trinidad and Tobago
How they compare
Trinidad and Tobago currently reports 99.6% against 99.5% in Mongolia, a difference of 0.1%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Trinidad and Tobago ahead.
Mongolia ranks 3rd and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 2nd of 191 countries.
Trinidad and Tobago has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mongolia | Trinidad and Tobago | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 91.6% | 99.5% | 7.9% | Trinidad and Tobago |
| 2010s | 98.6% | 99.5% | 1.0% | Trinidad and Tobago |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score, Mongolia or Trinidad and Tobago?
- Trinidad and Tobago, at 99.6% against 99.5% in Mongolia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score between Mongolia and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 0.1%, with Trinidad and Tobago ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mongolia and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Mongolia and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score?
- Mongolia ranks 3rd and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 2nd 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.