Sao Tome and Principe vs Zambia: Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score
Sao Tome and Principe
89.0%
in 2019
Zambia
88.4%
in 2019
Sao Tome and Principe rank
88th
Zambia rank
90th
Dealing with construction permits: Cost (% of Warehouse value) - Score over time
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Zambia
How they compare
Sao Tome and Principe currently reports 89.0% against 88.4% in Zambia, a difference of 0.6%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Sao Tome and Principe ahead.
Sao Tome and Principe ranks 88th and Zambia ranks 90th of 191 countries.
Sao Tome and Principe has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Sao Tome and Principe | Zambia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 85.5% | 53.9% | 31.6% | Sao Tome and Principe |
| 2010s | 88.0% | 80.2% | 7.9% | Sao Tome and Principe |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score, Sao Tome and Principe or Zambia?
- Sao Tome and Principe, at 89.0% against 88.4% in Zambia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score between Sao Tome and Principe and Zambia?
- 0.6%, with Sao Tome and Principe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Sao Tome and Principe and Zambia?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Sao Tome and Principe and Zambia rank globally for dealing with construction permits: cost (% of warehouse value) - score?
- Sao Tome and Principe ranks 88th 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.