Equatorial Guinea vs Qatar: Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score

Equatorial Guinea
68
in 2019
Qatar
68
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
55th
Qatar rank
55th

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

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Qatar
0204060200520122019

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 68 against 68 in Qatar, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 13 shared years of data; in 2007 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 55th and Qatar ranks 55th of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Qatar Difference Ahead
2000s 68 52 16 Equatorial Guinea
2010s 68 60 8 Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score, Equatorial Guinea or Qatar?
Equatorial Guinea, at 68 against 68 in Qatar as of 2019.
What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Qatar?
0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Qatar?
13 years are reported by both, from 2007 to 2019.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Qatar rank globally for dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 55th and Qatar 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

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.