Iraq vs Tanzania, United Republic of: Starting a business: Time - Women (days)- Score
Iraq
73.37
in 2019
Tanzania, United Republic of
70.85
in 2019
Iraq rank
155th
Tanzania, United Republic of rank
158th
Starting a business: Time - Women (days)- Score over time
- Iraq
- Tanzania, United Republic of
How they compare
Iraq currently reports 73.37 against 70.85 in Tanzania, United Republic of, a difference of 2.52.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 16 shared years of data; in 2004 it was Iraq ahead.
Iraq ranks 155th and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 158th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Iraq averaged higher in 1 and Tanzania, United Republic of in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Iraq | Tanzania, United Republic of | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 69.51 | 67.17 | 2.35 | Iraq |
| 2010s | 70.65 | 71.06 | 0.402 | Tanzania, United Republic of |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: time - women (days)- score, Iraq or Tanzania, United Republic of?
- Iraq, at 73.37 against 70.85 in Tanzania, United Republic of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: time - women (days)- score between Iraq and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 2.52, with Iraq ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Iraq and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 16 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2019.
- How do Iraq and Tanzania, United Republic of rank globally for starting a business: time - women (days)- score?
- Iraq ranks 155th and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 158th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Starting a business: Time - Women (days)- 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 time for women 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.