New Zealand vs United Arab Emirates: Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score
New Zealand
89.2%
in 2019
United Arab Emirates
89.2%
in 2019
New Zealand rank
86th
United Arab Emirates rank
85th
Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score over time
- New Zealand
- United Arab Emirates
How they compare
United Arab Emirates currently reports 89.2% against 89.2% in New Zealand, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was New Zealand ahead.
New Zealand ranks 86th and United Arab Emirates ranks 85th of 191 countries.
New Zealand has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | New Zealand | United Arab Emirates | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 96.2% | 89.5% | 6.7% | New Zealand |
| 2010s | 90.5% | 89.1% | 1.4% | New Zealand |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score, New Zealand or United Arab Emirates?
- United Arab Emirates, at 89.2% against 89.2% in New Zealand as of 2019.
- What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score between New Zealand and United Arab Emirates?
- 0.0%, with United Arab Emirates ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for New Zealand and United Arab Emirates?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do New Zealand and United Arab Emirates rank globally for dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score?
- New Zealand ranks 86th and United Arab Emirates ranks 85th 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.