Equatorial Guinea vs Sri Lanka: Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score
Equatorial Guinea
68
in 2019
Sri Lanka
68
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
55th
Sri Lanka rank
55th
Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Sri Lanka
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 68 against 68 in Sri Lanka, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 55th and Sri Lanka 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 | Sri Lanka | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 68 | 63.2 | 4.8 | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 68 | 65.2 | 2.8 | 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 Sri Lanka?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 68 against 68 in Sri Lanka as of 2019.
- What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Sri Lanka?
- 0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Sri Lanka?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Sri Lanka rank globally for dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 55th and Sri Lanka 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.