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

China
48
in 2019
Pakistan
51.8
in 2019
China rank
143rd
Pakistan rank
142nd

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

  • China
  • Pakistan
0204060200520122019

How they compare

Pakistan currently reports 51.8 against 48 in China, a difference of 3.8.

That makes Pakistan's figure about 1.1 times China's.

Across all 15 years both countries report, Pakistan has been ahead every year.

China ranks 143rd and Pakistan ranks 142nd of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade China Pakistan Difference Ahead
2000s 0 52 52 Pakistan
2010s 11.78 47.58 35.8 Pakistan

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score, China or Pakistan?
Pakistan, at 51.8 against 48 in China as of 2019.
What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score between China and Pakistan?
3.8, with Pakistan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for China and Pakistan?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do China and Pakistan rank globally for dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score?
China ranks 143rd and Pakistan ranks 142nd 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.