The Ease of Doing Biznezz:Rankings of 155 Countries

In an interview that was podcasted back in December, Tim Harford mentions his work with a World Bank programme called “Doing Business” [I think the interview can be found here.].

The Doing Business programme at the World Bank

provides objective measures of business regulations and their enforcement. The Doing Business indicators are comparable across 155 economies. They indicate the regulatory costs of business and can be used to analyze specific regulations that enhance or constrain investment, productivity and growth.

One of the neatest things at this site is they provide their results in easy-to-use tabular form. Click on a column heading and the data are re-sorted according to how the 155 countries in the study ranked on that particular topic. In the list below, I have copied their overall summary, in alphabetical order, of the ease of doing business in each of these countries; but check out their site because they have a mass of hyperlinks that will yield a great deal of information about each country.

[update: Adrian thought the table was more informative if presented by rank order rather than alphabetically and graciously sent me the revision, which I have posted to replace the alphabetical listing. His note:

Certain things jump out, such as the Anglo-Saxon (common law) countries and the Nordics at one end, and much of Africa at the other.

For alternative arrangements of the data, visit their website and click on the head of any column.

New Zealand 1
Singapore 2
United States 3
Canada 4
Norway 5
Australia 6
Hong Kong, China 7
Denmark 8
United Kingdom 9
Japan 10
Ireland 11
Iceland 12
Finland 13
Sweden 14
Lithuania 15
Estonia 16
Switzerland 17
Belgium 18
Germany 19
Thailand 20
Malaysia 21
Puerto Rico 22
Mauritius 23
Netherlands 24
Chile 25
Latvia 26
Korea 27
South Africa 28
Israel 29
Spain 30
Maldives 31
Austria 32
Namibia 33
Fiji 34
Taiwan, China 35
Tonga 36
Slovak Republic 37
Saudi Arabia 38
Samoa 39
Botswana 40
Czech Republic 41
Portugal 42
Jamaica 43
France 44
Kiribati 45
Armenia 46
Kuwait 47
Marshall Islands 48
Vanuatu 49
Palau 50
Oman 51
Hungary 52
Solomon Islands 53
Poland 54
Nepal 55
Micronesia 56
Panama 57
Tunisia 58
Nicaragua 59
Pakistan 60
Mongolia 61
Bulgaria 62
Slovenia 63
Papua New Guinea 64
Bangladesh 65
Colombia 66
Zambia 67
Kenya 68
United Arab Emirates 69
Italy 70
Peru 71
Uganda 72
Mexico 73
Jordan 74
Sri Lanka 75
El Salvador 76
Argentina 77
Romania 78
Russian Federation 79
Greece 80
Macedonia, FYR 81
Ghana 82
Moldova 83
Kyrgyz Republic 84
Uruguay 85
Kazakhstan 86
Bosnia and Herzegovina 87
Paraguay 88
Costa Rica 89
Yemen 90
China 91
Serbia and Montenegro 92
Turkey 93
Nigeria 94
Lebanon 95
Malawi 96
Lesotho 97
Azerbaijan 98
Vietnam 99
Georgia 100
Ethiopia 101
Morocco 102
Dominican Republic 103
Bhutan 104
Guyana 105
Belarus 106
Ecuador 107
Iran 108
Guatemala 109
Mozambique 110
Bolivia 111
Honduras 112
Philippines 113
Iraq 114
Indonesia 115
India 116
Albania 117
Croatia 118
Brazil 119
Venezuela 120
Syria 121
Afghanistan 122
São Tomé and Principe 123
Ukraine 124
West Bank and Gaza 125
Zimbabwe 126
Mauritania 127
Algeria 128
Benin 129
Cameroon 130
Madagascar 131
Senegal 132
Cambodia 133
Haiti 134
Angola 135
Sierra Leone 136
Eritrea 137
Uzbekistan 138
Rwanda 139
Tanzania 140
Egypt 141
Timor-Leste 142
Burundi 143
Guinea 144
Cote d’Ivoire 145
Mali 146
Lao PDR 147
Congo, Rep. 148
Togo 149
Niger 150
Sudan 151
Chad 152
Central African Republic 153
Burkina Faso 154
Congo, Dem.Rep. 155

Update: for more on the bureaucratic costs of doing biznezz in many countries, see the latest from Ben Muse.

The Ease of Doing Biznezz:Rankings of 155 Countries

In an interview that was podcasted back in December, Tim Harford mentions his work with a World Bank programme called “Doing Business” [I think the interview can be found here.].

The Doing Business programme at the World Bank

provides objective measures of business regulations and their enforcement. The Doing Business indicators are comparable across 155 economies. They indicate the regulatory costs of business and can be used to analyze specific regulations that enhance or constrain investment, productivity and growth.

One of the neatest things at this site is they provide their results in easy-to-use tabular form. Click on a column heading and the data are re-sorted according to how the 155 countries in the study ranked on that particular topic. In the list below, I have copied their overall summary, in alphabetical order, of the ease of doing business in each of these countries; but check out their site because they have a mass of hyperlinks that will yield a great deal of information about each country.

[update: Adrian thought the table was more informative if presented by rank order rather than alphabetically and graciously sent me the revision, which I have posted to replace the alphabetical listing. His note:

Certain things jump out, such as the Anglo-Saxon (common law) countries and the Nordics at one end, and much of Africa at the other.

For alternative arrangements of the data, visit their website and click on the head of any column.

New Zealand 1
Singapore 2
United States 3
Canada 4
Norway 5
Australia 6
Hong Kong, China 7
Denmark 8
United Kingdom 9
Japan 10
Ireland 11
Iceland 12
Finland 13
Sweden 14
Lithuania 15
Estonia 16
Switzerland 17
Belgium 18
Germany 19
Thailand 20
Malaysia 21
Puerto Rico 22
Mauritius 23
Netherlands 24
Chile 25
Latvia 26
Korea 27
South Africa 28
Israel 29
Spain 30
Maldives 31
Austria 32
Namibia 33
Fiji 34
Taiwan, China 35
Tonga 36
Slovak Republic 37
Saudi Arabia 38
Samoa 39
Botswana 40
Czech Republic 41
Portugal 42
Jamaica 43
France 44
Kiribati 45
Armenia 46
Kuwait 47
Marshall Islands 48
Vanuatu 49
Palau 50
Oman 51
Hungary 52
Solomon Islands 53
Poland 54
Nepal 55
Micronesia 56
Panama 57
Tunisia 58
Nicaragua 59
Pakistan 60
Mongolia 61
Bulgaria 62
Slovenia 63
Papua New Guinea 64
Bangladesh 65
Colombia 66
Zambia 67
Kenya 68
United Arab Emirates 69
Italy 70
Peru 71
Uganda 72
Mexico 73
Jordan 74
Sri Lanka 75
El Salvador 76
Argentina 77
Romania 78
Russian Federation 79
Greece 80
Macedonia, FYR 81
Ghana 82
Moldova 83
Kyrgyz Republic 84
Uruguay 85
Kazakhstan 86
Bosnia and Herzegovina 87
Paraguay 88
Costa Rica 89
Yemen 90
China 91
Serbia and Montenegro 92
Turkey 93
Nigeria 94
Lebanon 95
Malawi 96
Lesotho 97
Azerbaijan 98
Vietnam 99
Georgia 100
Ethiopia 101
Morocco 102
Dominican Republic 103
Bhutan 104
Guyana 105
Belarus 106
Ecuador 107
Iran 108
Guatemala 109
Mozambique 110
Bolivia 111
Honduras 112
Philippines 113
Iraq 114
Indonesia 115
India 116
Albania 117
Croatia 118
Brazil 119
Venezuela 120
Syria 121
Afghanistan 122
São Tomé and Principe 123
Ukraine 124
West Bank and Gaza 125
Zimbabwe 126
Mauritania 127
Algeria 128
Benin 129
Cameroon 130
Madagascar 131
Senegal 132
Cambodia 133
Haiti 134
Angola 135
Sierra Leone 136
Eritrea 137
Uzbekistan 138
Rwanda 139
Tanzania 140
Egypt 141
Timor-Leste 142
Burundi 143
Guinea 144
Cote d’Ivoire 145
Mali 146
Lao PDR 147
Congo, Rep. 148
Togo 149
Niger 150
Sudan 151
Chad 152
Central African Republic 153
Burkina Faso 154
Congo, Dem.Rep. 155

Update: for more on the bureaucratic costs of doing biznezz in many countries, see the latest from Ben Muse.

The Ease of Doing Biznezz:Rankings of 155 Countries

In an interview that was podcasted back in December, Tim Harford mentions his work with a World Bank programme called “Doing Business” [I think the interview can be found here.].

The Doing Business programme at the World Bank

provides objective measures of business regulations and their enforcement. The Doing Business indicators are comparable across 155 economies. They indicate the regulatory costs of business and can be used to analyze specific regulations that enhance or constrain investment, productivity and growth.

One of the neatest things at this site is they provide their results in easy-to-use tabular form. Click on a column heading and the data are re-sorted according to how the 155 countries in the study ranked on that particular topic. In the list below, I have copied their overall summary, in alphabetical order, of the ease of doing business in each of these countries; but check out their site because they have a mass of hyperlinks that will yield a great deal of information about each country.

[update: Adrian thought the table was more informative if presented by rank order rather than alphabetically and graciously sent me the revision, which I have posted to replace the alphabetical listing. His note:

Certain things jump out, such as the Anglo-Saxon (common law) countries and the Nordics at one end, and much of Africa at the other.

For alternative arrangements of the data, visit their website and click on the head of any column.

New Zealand 1
Singapore 2
United States 3
Canada 4
Norway 5
Australia 6
Hong Kong, China 7
Denmark 8
United Kingdom 9
Japan 10
Ireland 11
Iceland 12
Finland 13
Sweden 14
Lithuania 15
Estonia 16
Switzerland 17
Belgium 18
Germany 19
Thailand 20
Malaysia 21
Puerto Rico 22
Mauritius 23
Netherlands 24
Chile 25
Latvia 26
Korea 27
South Africa 28
Israel 29
Spain 30
Maldives 31
Austria 32
Namibia 33
Fiji 34
Taiwan, China 35
Tonga 36
Slovak Republic 37
Saudi Arabia 38
Samoa 39
Botswana 40
Czech Republic 41
Portugal 42
Jamaica 43
France 44
Kiribati 45
Armenia 46
Kuwait 47
Marshall Islands 48
Vanuatu 49
Palau 50
Oman 51
Hungary 52
Solomon Islands 53
Poland 54
Nepal 55
Micronesia 56
Panama 57
Tunisia 58
Nicaragua 59
Pakistan 60
Mongolia 61
Bulgaria 62
Slovenia 63
Papua New Guinea 64
Bangladesh 65
Colombia 66
Zambia 67
Kenya 68
United Arab Emirates 69
Italy 70
Peru 71
Uganda 72
Mexico 73
Jordan 74
Sri Lanka 75
El Salvador 76
Argentina 77
Romania 78
Russian Federation 79
Greece 80
Macedonia, FYR 81
Ghana 82
Moldova 83
Kyrgyz Republic 84
Uruguay 85
Kazakhstan 86
Bosnia and Herzegovina 87
Paraguay 88
Costa Rica 89
Yemen 90
China 91
Serbia and Montenegro 92
Turkey 93
Nigeria 94
Lebanon 95
Malawi 96
Lesotho 97
Azerbaijan 98
Vietnam 99
Georgia 100
Ethiopia 101
Morocco 102
Dominican Republic 103
Bhutan 104
Guyana 105
Belarus 106
Ecuador 107
Iran 108
Guatemala 109
Mozambique 110
Bolivia 111
Honduras 112
Philippines 113
Iraq 114
Indonesia 115
India 116
Albania 117
Croatia 118
Brazil 119
Venezuela 120
Syria 121
Afghanistan 122
São Tomé and Principe 123
Ukraine 124
West Bank and Gaza 125
Zimbabwe 126
Mauritania 127
Algeria 128
Benin 129
Cameroon 130
Madagascar 131
Senegal 132
Cambodia 133
Haiti 134
Angola 135
Sierra Leone 136
Eritrea 137
Uzbekistan 138
Rwanda 139
Tanzania 140
Egypt 141
Timor-Leste 142
Burundi 143
Guinea 144
Cote d’Ivoire 145
Mali 146
Lao PDR 147
Congo, Rep. 148
Togo 149
Niger 150
Sudan 151
Chad 152
Central African Republic 153
Burkina Faso 154
Congo, Dem.Rep. 155

Update: for more on the bureaucratic costs of doing biznezz in many countries, see the latest from Ben Muse.

Auto Purchases and the Internet; Monopsony or Gains from Trade?

There is evidence that people who use information from the internet when purchasing a car pay, on average, 1.5% less than other purchasers, ceteris paribus. From NBER Working Paper 11515 via SmartEconomist:

There are three results shedding light on how the Internet affects car prices. First, the Internet does not appear to be particularly useful in discovering which dealers offer lower prices. This may be due to the fact that the actual selling price is determined through negotiation, so that information on the prices actually offered by different dealers is not immediately available. By contrast, comparing the prices of different sellers is easier for many non-car products, since the posted price is the actual price at which the sale occurs.



Second, the Internet benefits car buyers because it provides access to an important piece of information: the car’s invoice price – the manufacturer’s initial charge to the dealer. Knowledge of the invoice price gives consumers a good idea of what the lowest price that the dealer is prepared to accept may be. In fact, it turns out that consumers who have gathered this information on average end up paying 0.61% less than other buyers.



Third, using online buying services is also an effective way to obtain lower prices. Such services are an important new institution which the Internet made possible. Consumers who submit a referral to independent online buying services obtain prices which are on average 0.72% lower. It is interesting to notice that there are online buying services set up by manufacturers as well, and that they are not effective in lowering prices. This is probably because independent services generate quotes from all the dealers which are geographically close to the consumer using the service, while manufacturers only select the closest dealer. Referrals from independent services therefore put more pressure on dealers, who fear that the online service could switch to other dealers unless they offer attractive conditions. Thus, independent online services indirectly allow consumers to exercise market power.

This analysis of the results is probably misleading at best. Car-buying services do not have and do not exercise monopsony power over car dealers; consumers who benefit from using car-buying services do not “exercise market power” of any sort.



Instead, the car-buying services exercise the use of superior information, along with more effort, time, and search to negotiate lower prices. They specialize, which means the costs per purchase of negotiating more effectively are lower per purchase. Consumers who use these services are exploiting typical division of labour, specialization, and comparative advantage.

Auto Purchases and the Internet; Monopsony or Gains from Trade?

There is evidence that people who use information from the internet when purchasing a car pay, on average, 1.5% less than other purchasers, ceteris paribus. From NBER Working Paper 11515 via SmartEconomist:

There are three results shedding light on how the Internet affects car prices. First, the Internet does not appear to be particularly useful in discovering which dealers offer lower prices. This may be due to the fact that the actual selling price is determined through negotiation, so that information on the prices actually offered by different dealers is not immediately available. By contrast, comparing the prices of different sellers is easier for many non-car products, since the posted price is the actual price at which the sale occurs.



Second, the Internet benefits car buyers because it provides access to an important piece of information: the car’s invoice price – the manufacturer’s initial charge to the dealer. Knowledge of the invoice price gives consumers a good idea of what the lowest price that the dealer is prepared to accept may be. In fact, it turns out that consumers who have gathered this information on average end up paying 0.61% less than other buyers.



Third, using online buying services is also an effective way to obtain lower prices. Such services are an important new institution which the Internet made possible. Consumers who submit a referral to independent online buying services obtain prices which are on average 0.72% lower. It is interesting to notice that there are online buying services set up by manufacturers as well, and that they are not effective in lowering prices. This is probably because independent services generate quotes from all the dealers which are geographically close to the consumer using the service, while manufacturers only select the closest dealer. Referrals from independent services therefore put more pressure on dealers, who fear that the online service could switch to other dealers unless they offer attractive conditions. Thus, independent online services indirectly allow consumers to exercise market power.

This analysis of the results is probably misleading at best. Car-buying services do not have and do not exercise monopsony power over car dealers; consumers who benefit from using car-buying services do not “exercise market power” of any sort.



Instead, the car-buying services exercise the use of superior information, along with more effort, time, and search to negotiate lower prices. They specialize, which means the costs per purchase of negotiating more effectively are lower per purchase. Consumers who use these services are exploiting typical division of labour, specialization, and comparative advantage.

Auto Purchases and the Internet; Monopsony or Gains from Trade?

There is evidence that people who use information from the internet when purchasing a car pay, on average, 1.5% less than other purchasers, ceteris paribus. From NBER Working Paper 11515 via SmartEconomist:

There are three results shedding light on how the Internet affects car prices. First, the Internet does not appear to be particularly useful in discovering which dealers offer lower prices. This may be due to the fact that the actual selling price is determined through negotiation, so that information on the prices actually offered by different dealers is not immediately available. By contrast, comparing the prices of different sellers is easier for many non-car products, since the posted price is the actual price at which the sale occurs.



Second, the Internet benefits car buyers because it provides access to an important piece of information: the car’s invoice price – the manufacturer’s initial charge to the dealer. Knowledge of the invoice price gives consumers a good idea of what the lowest price that the dealer is prepared to accept may be. In fact, it turns out that consumers who have gathered this information on average end up paying 0.61% less than other buyers.



Third, using online buying services is also an effective way to obtain lower prices. Such services are an important new institution which the Internet made possible. Consumers who submit a referral to independent online buying services obtain prices which are on average 0.72% lower. It is interesting to notice that there are online buying services set up by manufacturers as well, and that they are not effective in lowering prices. This is probably because independent services generate quotes from all the dealers which are geographically close to the consumer using the service, while manufacturers only select the closest dealer. Referrals from independent services therefore put more pressure on dealers, who fear that the online service could switch to other dealers unless they offer attractive conditions. Thus, independent online services indirectly allow consumers to exercise market power.

This analysis of the results is probably misleading at best. Car-buying services do not have and do not exercise monopsony power over car dealers; consumers who benefit from using car-buying services do not “exercise market power” of any sort.



Instead, the car-buying services exercise the use of superior information, along with more effort, time, and search to negotiate lower prices. They specialize, which means the costs per purchase of negotiating more effectively are lower per purchase. Consumers who use these services are exploiting typical division of labour, specialization, and comparative advantage.

My Plan to Become an Orthopaedic Surgeon Is on Hold

Last week, Jack sent me this link to Wikibooks. These are books that are organized and produced the same way entries to the Wikipedia internet encyclopedia are. Roughly, anyone can write material, and anyone can edit the material.



As I looked through the titles and topics of some of the books that are available, I was really impressed. It makes me wonder the extent to which instructors will, in the future, place more reliance on internet textbooks instead of published, hard-copy texts [for example, see this economics text by former colleague, Preston McAfee. Also take a look at the open courseware provided by MIT, but that material generally does not include an online textbook].



As an example, here is a list of books available just in medicine:

MEDICINE – Medicine – Radiology – Diagnostic Radiology – OsiriX Online Documentation – Emergency Medicine – Internal Medicine – Radiation Oncology – Orthopedic Surgery – Test Prep for USMLE Step 1 – Test Prep for USMLE Step 2 -

It turns out, sadly, that many of these books, including the one on orthopedic surgery, have no entries yet. Much of the material is in the proposal stage or doesn’t exist yet. And even the “books” that have been published are not very thorough [see for example, the book on Game Theory and compare with this].



As a result, my home-study programme to become an orthopaedic surgeon has been put on hold for at least one more term.

Evil, Greedy, US Capitalist Buys Canadian Icon: The Bay, formerly The Hudson Bay Company

In the National Post (Jan. 28, 2006, p20) an editorial cartoon shows two people on an escalator, presumably at The Bay (once a major retailer in Canada). One person says to the other,

I just hope the Bay maintains its Canadian identity.

All around them, however, are signs for Toshiba, Calvin Klein, Maytag, Nike, Sony, Tommy Hilfiger etc.

For the background story, see this.

Addendum: I had always hoped that the U.S. Target chain would buy The Bay and bring some substantial competition to Wal-Mart in discount retailing in Canada. As it is now, Zeller’s (owned by The Bay) seems to be a pretty weak competitor in that market segment.

Evil, Greedy, US Capitalist Buys Canadian Icon: The Bay, formerly The Hudson Bay Company

In the National Post (Jan. 28, 2006, p20) an editorial cartoon shows two people on an escalator, presumably at The Bay (once a major retailer in Canada). One person says to the other,

I just hope the Bay maintains its Canadian identity.

All around them, however, are signs for Toshiba, Calvin Klein, Maytag, Nike, Sony, Tommy Hilfiger etc.

For the background story, see this.

Addendum: I had always hoped that the U.S. Target chain would buy The Bay and bring some substantial competition to Wal-Mart in discount retailing in Canada. As it is now, Zeller’s (owned by The Bay) seems to be a pretty weak competitor in that market segment.

Evil, Greedy, US Capitalist Buys Canadian Icon: The Bay, formerly The Hudson Bay Company

In the National Post (Jan. 28, 2006, p20) an editorial cartoon shows two people on an escalator, presumably at The Bay (once a major retailer in Canada). One person says to the other,

I just hope the Bay maintains its Canadian identity.

All around them, however, are signs for Toshiba, Calvin Klein, Maytag, Nike, Sony, Tommy Hilfiger etc.

For the background story, see this.

Addendum: I had always hoped that the U.S. Target chain would buy The Bay and bring some substantial competition to Wal-Mart in discount retailing in Canada. As it is now, Zeller’s (owned by The Bay) seems to be a pretty weak competitor in that market segment.