Latvia vs Mauritania: Dealing with construction permits: Procedures (number) - Score

Latvia
64
in 2019
Mauritania
64
in 2019
Latvia rank
70th
Mauritania rank
70th

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

  • Latvia
  • Mauritania
0204060200520122019

How they compare

Latvia currently reports 64 against 64 in Mauritania, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Mauritania ahead.

Latvia ranks 70th and Mauritania ranks 70th of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Latvia Mauritania Difference Ahead
2000s 44.8 48 3.2 Mauritania
2010s 60.4 62.4 2 Mauritania

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score, Latvia or Mauritania?
Latvia, at 64 against 64 in Mauritania as of 2019.
What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score between Latvia and Mauritania?
0, with Latvia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Mauritania?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Latvia and Mauritania rank globally for dealing with construction permits: procedures (number) - score?
Latvia ranks 70th and Mauritania ranks 70th 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.