Congo, Rep. vs Equatorial Guinea: Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score
Congo, Rep.
68
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
68
in 2019
Congo, Rep. rank
55th
Equatorial Guinea rank
55th
Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score over time
- Congo, Rep.
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Congo, Rep. currently reports 68 against 68 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Congo, Rep. ahead.
Congo, Rep. ranks 55th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 55th of 188 countries.
Congo, Rep. has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Congo, Rep. | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 72 | 68 | 4 | Congo, Rep. |
| 2010s | 69.6 | 68 | 1.6 | Congo, Rep. |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score, Congo, Rep. or Equatorial Guinea?
- Congo, Rep., at 68 against 68 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score between Congo, Rep. and Equatorial Guinea?
- 0, with Congo, Rep. ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Congo, Rep. and Equatorial Guinea?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Congo, Rep. and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score?
- Congo, Rep. ranks 55th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 55th 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
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.