Equatorial Guinea vs Grenada: Dealing with construction permits: Time (days) - Score

Equatorial Guinea
65.99
in 2019
Grenada
65.42
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
99th
Grenada rank
102nd

Dealing with construction permits: Time (days) - Score over time

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Grenada
0204060200520122019

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 65.99 against 65.42 in Grenada, a difference of 0.57.

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

Equatorial Guinea ranks 99th and Grenada ranks 102nd 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 Grenada Difference Ahead
2000s 65.99 65.42 0.5763 Equatorial Guinea
2010s 65.99 65.42 0.5763 Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher dealing with construction permits: time (days) - score, Equatorial Guinea or Grenada?
Equatorial Guinea, at 65.99 against 65.42 in Grenada as of 2019.
What is the difference in dealing with construction permits: time (days) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Grenada?
0.57, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Grenada?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Grenada rank globally for dealing with construction permits: time (days) - score?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 99th and Grenada ranks 102nd of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Dealing with construction permits: Time (days) - 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: Time (days) - 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 time 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.