Azerbaijan vs China: Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score

Azerbaijan
48
in 2019
China
48
in 2019
Azerbaijan rank
143rd
China rank
143rd

Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score over time

  • Azerbaijan
  • China
01020304050200520122019

How they compare

Azerbaijan currently reports 48 against 48 in China, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Azerbaijan ahead.

Azerbaijan ranks 143rd and China ranks 143rd of 188 countries.

Azerbaijan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Azerbaijan China Difference Ahead
2000s 24 0 24 Azerbaijan
2010s 33.6 11.78 21.82 Azerbaijan

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score, Azerbaijan or China?
Azerbaijan, at 48 against 48 in China as of 2019.
What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score between Azerbaijan and China?
0, with Azerbaijan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Azerbaijan and China?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Azerbaijan and China rank globally for dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score?
Azerbaijan ranks 143rd and China ranks 143rd of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 2,783 data points, 2005–2019
Last refreshed

The score for the number procedures 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.