In 2022, Singapore was the country with the best trade and transport-related infrastructure. This was according to an index that evaluates each countries perception in the quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure such as ports, railroads, roads, or information technology. Singapore's score was of *** while Switzerland, which ranked second, scored ***. Afghanistan and Libya had the worst-quality infrastructure.

The average for 2019 based on 139 countries was 4.03 points. The highest value was in Singapore: 6.5 points and the lowest value was in Tajikistan: 1 points. The indicator is available from 2006 to 2019. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) in Trinidad and Tobago was reported at 2.4 1=low to 5=high in 2022, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Trinidad and Tobago - Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on August of 2025.

Abstract

Estache and Goicoechea present an infrastructure database that was assembled from multiple sources. Its main purposes are: (i) to provide a snapshot of the sector as of the end of 2004; and (ii) to facilitate quantitative analytical research on infrastructure sectors. The related working paper includes definitions, source information and the data available for 37 performance indicators that proxy access, affordability and quality of service (most recent data as of June 2005). Additionally, the database includes a snapshot of 15 reform indicators across infrastructure sectors.

This is a first attempt, since the effort made in the World Development Report 1994, at generating a database on infrastructure sectors and it needs to be recognized as such. This database is not a state of the art output—this is being worked on by sector experts on a different time table. The effort has however generated a significant amount of new information. The database already provides enough information to launch a much more quantitative debate on the state of infrastructure. But much more is needed and by circulating this information at this stage, we hope to be able to generate feedback and fill the major knowledge gaps and inconsistencies we have identified.

Geographic coverage

The database covers the following countries: - Afghanistan - Albania - Algeria - American Samoa - Andorra - Angola - Antigua and Barbuda - Argentina - Armenia - Aruba - Australia - Austria - Azerbaijan - Bahamas, The - Bahrain - Bangladesh - Barbados - Belarus - Belgium - Belize - Benin - Bermuda - Bhutan - Bolivia - Bosnia and Herzegovina - Botswana - Brazil - Brunei - Bulgaria - Burkina Faso - Burundi - Cambodia - Cameroon - Canada - Cape Verde - Cayman Islands - Central African Republic - Chad - Channel Islands - Chile - China - Colombia - Comoros - Congo, Dem. Rep. - Congo, Rep. - Costa Rica - Cote d'Ivoire - Croatia - Cuba - Cyprus - Czech Republic - Denmark - Djibouti - Dominica - Dominican Republic - Ecuador - Egypt, Arab Rep. - El Salvador - Equatorial Guinea - Eritrea - Estonia - Ethiopia - Faeroe Islands - Fiji - Finland - France - French Polynesia - Gabon - Gambia, The - Georgia - Germany - Ghana - Greece - Greenland - Grenada - Guam - Guatemala - Guinea - Guinea-Bissau - Guyana - Haiti - Honduras - Hong Kong, China - Hungary - Iceland - India - Indonesia - Iran, Islamic Rep. - Iraq - Ireland - Isle of Man - Israel - Italy - Jamaica - Japan - Jordan - Kazakhstan - Kenya - Kiribati - Korea, Dem. Rep. - Korea, Rep. - Kuwait - Kyrgyz Republic - Lao PDR - Latvia - Lebanon - Lesotho - Liberia - Libya - Liechtenstein - Lithuania - Luxembourg - Macao, China - Macedonia, FYR - Madagascar - Malawi - Malaysia - Maldives - Mali - Malta - Marshall Islands - Mauritania - Mauritius - Mayotte - Mexico - Micronesia, Fed. Sts. - Moldova - Monaco - Mongolia - Morocco - Mozambique - Myanmar - Namibia - Nepal - Netherlands - Netherlands Antilles - New Caledonia - New Zealand - Nicaragua - Niger - Nigeria - Northern Mariana Islands - Norway - Oman - Pakistan - Palau - Panama - Papua New Guinea - Paraguay - Peru - Philippines - Poland - Portugal - Puerto Rico - Qatar - Romania - Russian Federation - Rwanda - Samoa - San Marino - Sao Tome and Principe - Saudi Arabia - Senegal - Seychelles - Sierra Leone - Singapore - Slovak Republic - Slovenia - Solomon Islands - Somalia - South Africa - Spain - Sri Lanka - St. Kitts and Nevis - St. Lucia - St. Vincent and the Grenadines - Sudan - Suriname - Swaziland - Sweden - Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic - Tajikistan - Tanzania - Thailand - Togo - Tonga - Trinidad and Tobago - Tunisia - Turkey - Turkmenistan - Uganda - Ukraine - United Arab Emirates - United Kingdom - United States - Uruguay - Uzbekistan - Vanuatu - Venezuela, RB - Vietnam - Virgin Islands (U.S.) - West Bank and Gaza - Yemen, Rep. - Yugoslavia, FR (Serbia/Montenegro) - Zambia - Zimbabwe

Kind of data

Aggregate data [agg]

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Response rate

Sector Performance Indicators

Energy The energy sector is relatively well covered by the database, at least in terms of providing a relatively recent snapshot for the main policy areas. The best covered area is access where data are available for 2000 for about 61% of the 207 countries included in the database. The technical quality indicator is available for 60% of the countries, and at least one of the perceived quality indicators is available for 40% of the countries. Price information is available for about 41% of the countries, distinguishing between residential and non residential.

Water & Sanitation Because the sector is part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), it enjoys a lot of effort on data generation in terms of the access rates. The WHO is the main engine behind this effort in collaboration with the multilateral and bilateral aid agencies. The coverage is actually quite high -some national, urban and rural information is available for 75 to 85% of the countries- but there are significant concerns among the research community about the fact that access rates have been measured without much consideration to the quality of access level. The data on technical quality are only available for 27% of the countries. There are data on perceived quality for roughly 39% of the countries but it cannot be used to qualify the information provided by the raw access rates (i.e. access 3 hours a day is not equivalent to access 24 hours a day).

Information and Communication Technology The ICT sector is probably the best covered among the infrastructure sub-sectors to a large extent thanks to the fact that the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has taken on the responsibility to collect the data. ITU covers a wide spectrum of activity under the communications heading and its coverage ranges from 85 to 99% for all national access indicators. The information on prices needed to make assessments of affordability is also quite extensive since it covers roughly 85 to 95% of the 207 countries. With respect to quality, the coverage of technical indicators is over 88% while the information on perceived quality is only available for roughly 40% of the countries.

Transport The transport sector is possibly the least well covered in terms of the service orientation of infrastructure indicators. Regarding access, network density is the closest approximation to access to the service and is covered at a rate close to 90% for roads but only at a rate of 50% for rail. The relevant data on prices only cover about 30% of the sample for railways. Some type of technical quality information is available for 86% of the countries. Quality perception is only available for about 40% of the countries.

Institutional Reform Indicators

Electricity The data on electricity policy reform were collected from the following sources: ABS Electricity Deregulation Report (2004), AEI-Brookings telecommunications and electricity regulation database (2003), Bacon (1999), Estache and Gassner (2004), Estache, Trujillo, and Tovar de la Fe (2004), Global Regulatory Network Program (2004), Henisz et al. (2003), International Porwer Finance Review (2003-04), International Power and Utilities Finance Review (2004-05), Kikukawa (2004), Wallsten et al. (2004), World Bank Caribbean Infrastructure Assessment (2004), World Bank Global Energy Sector Reform in Developing Countries (1999), World Bank staff, and country regulators. The coverage for the three types of institutional indicators is quite good for the electricity sector. For regulatory institutions and private participation in generation and distribution, the coverage is about 80% of the 207 counties. It is somewhat lower on the market structure with only 58%.

Water & Sanitation The data on water policy reform were collected from the following sources: ABS Water and Waste Utilities of the World (2004), Asian Developing Bank (2000), Bayliss (2002), Benoit (2004), Budds and McGranahan (2003), Hall, Bayliss, and Lobina (2002), Hall and Lobina (2002), Hall, Lobina, and De La Mote (2002), Halpern (2002), Lobina (2001), World Bank Caribbean Infrastructure Assessment (2004), World Bank Sector Note on Water Supply and Sanitation for Infrastructure in EAP (2004), and World Bank staff. The coverage for institutional reforms in W&S is not as exhaustive as for the other utilities. Information on the regulatory institutions responsible for large utilities is available for about 67% of the countries. Ownership data are available for about 70% of the countries. There is no information on the market structure good enough to be reported here at this stage. In most countries small scale operators are important private actors but there is no systematic record of their existence. Most of the information available on their role and importance is only anecdotal.

Information and Communication Technology The report Trends in Telecommunications Reform from ITU (revised by World Bank staff) is the main source of information for this sector. The information on institutional reforms in the sector is however not as exhaustive as it is for its sector performance indicators. While the coverage on the regulatory institutions is 100%, it varies between 76 and 90% of the countries for more of the other indicators. Quite surprisingly also, in contrast to what is available for other sectors, it proved difficult to obtain data on the timing of reforms and of the creation of the regulatory agencies.

Transport Information on transport institutions and reforms is not systematically generated by any agency. Even though more data are needed to have a more comprenhensive picture of the transport sector, it was possible to collect data on railways policy reform from Janes World Railways (2003-04) and complement it with

The average for 2019 based on 141 countries was 4.07 points. The highest value was in Singapore: 6.5 points and the lowest value was in Chad: 1.9 points. The indicator is available from 2006 to 2019. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

The average for 2019 based on 101 countries was 3.61 points. The highest value was in Japan: 6.8 points and the lowest value was in Albania: 1.2 points. The indicator is available from 2009 to 2019. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

In 2023, Indonesia and Singapore were the countries where adults had the most positive perceptions of their airport infrastructure. Meanwhile, 80 percent of adults in Thailand, Turkey, and South Africa rated their airport infrastructure positively. In contrast, Romania had the lowest positive perception, with only 38 percent of respondents rating their airport infrastructure as very or fairly good.

Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) in China was reported at 4 1=low to 5=high in 2022, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. China - Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on August of 2025.

Norway NO: Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data was reported at 3.954 NA in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 4.192 NA for 2014. Norway NO: Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data is updated yearly, averaging 3.954 NA from Dec 2007 (Median) to 2016, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 4.220 NA in 2010 and a record low of 3.820 NA in 2007. Norway NO: Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Norway – Table NO.World Bank.WDI: Transportation. Data are from Logistics Performance Index surveys conducted by the World Bank in partnership with academic and international institutions and private companies and individuals engaged in international logistics. 2009 round of surveys covered more than 5,000 country assessments by nearly 1,000 international freight forwarders. Respondents evaluate eight markets on six core dimensions on a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The markets are chosen based on the most important export and import markets of the respondent's country, random selection, and, for landlocked countries, neighboring countries that connect them with international markets. Details of the survey methodology are in Arvis and others' Connecting to Compete 2010: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy (2010). Respondents evaluated the quality of trade and transport related infrastructure (e.g. ports, railroads, roads, information technology), on a rating ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Scores are averaged across all respondents.; ; World Bank and Turku School of Economics, Logistic Performance Index Surveys. Data are available online at : http://www.worldbank.org/lpi. Summary results are published in Arvis and others' Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy, The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators report.; Unweighted average;

The average for 2019 based on 141 countries was 4.55 points. The highest value was in Singapore: 6.7 points and the lowest value was in Lesotho: 1.4 points. The indicator is available from 2006 to 2019. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) in Armenia was reported at 2.6 1=low to 5=high in 2022, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Armenia - Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on July of 2025.

Australia Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data was reported at 4.100 NA in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 3.970 NA for 2018. Australia Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data is updated yearly, averaging 3.830 NA from Dec 2007 (Median) to 2022, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 4.100 NA in 2022 and a record low of 3.650 NA in 2007. Australia Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Transportation. Data are from the Logistics Performance Index survey conducted by the World Bank in partnership with academic and international institutions and private companies and individuals engaged in international logistics. Respondents evaluate eight countries on six core dimensions on a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The eight countries are chosen based on the most important export and import markets of the respondent's country, random selection, and, for landlocked countries, neighboring countries that connect them with international markets. The 2023 LPI survey was conducted from September 6 to November 5, 2022. It provided 4,090 country assessments by 652 logistics professionals in 115 countries in all World Bank regions. Details of the survey methodology and index construction methodology are included in Appendix 5 of the 2023 LPI report available at: https://lpi.worldbank.org/report. Respondents evaluated the quality of trade and transport related infrastructure (e.g. ports, railroads, roads, information technology), on a rating ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Scores are averaged across all respondents.;Data are available online at: https://lpi.worldbank.org/. Summary results are published in World Bank (2023): Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy, The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators.;Unweighted average;

France FR: Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data was reported at 4.011 NA in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 3.983 NA for 2014. France FR: Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data is updated yearly, averaging 3.983 NA from Dec 2007 (Median) to 2016, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 4.011 NA in 2016 and a record low of 3.820 NA in 2007. France FR: Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s France – Table FR.World Bank: Transportation. Data are from Logistics Performance Index surveys conducted by the World Bank in partnership with academic and international institutions and private companies and individuals engaged in international logistics. 2009 round of surveys covered more than 5,000 country assessments by nearly 1,000 international freight forwarders. Respondents evaluate eight markets on six core dimensions on a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The markets are chosen based on the most important export and import markets of the respondent's country, random selection, and, for landlocked countries, neighboring countries that connect them with international markets. Details of the survey methodology are in Arvis and others' Connecting to Compete 2010: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy (2010). Respondents evaluated the quality of trade and transport related infrastructure (e.g. ports, railroads, roads, information technology), on a rating ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Scores are averaged across all respondents.; ; World Bank and Turku School of Economics, Logistic Performance Index Surveys. Data are available online at : http://www.worldbank.org/lpi. Summary results are published in Arvis and others' Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy, The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators report.; Unweighted average;

Argentina AR: Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data was reported at 2.800 NA in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 2.770 NA for 2018. Argentina AR: Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data is updated yearly, averaging 2.810 NA from Dec 2007 (Median) to 2022, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2.940 NA in 2012 and a record low of 2.750 NA in 2010. Argentina AR: Logistics Performance Index: 1=Low To 5=High: Quality of Trade and Transport-Related Infrastructure data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Argentina – Table AR.World Bank.WDI: Transportation. Data are from the Logistics Performance Index survey conducted by the World Bank in partnership with academic and international institutions and private companies and individuals engaged in international logistics. Respondents evaluate eight countries on six core dimensions on a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The eight countries are chosen based on the most important export and import markets of the respondent's country, random selection, and, for landlocked countries, neighboring countries that connect them with international markets. The 2023 LPI survey was conducted from September 6 to November 5, 2022. It provided 4,090 country assessments by 652 logistics professionals in 115 countries in all World Bank regions. Details of the survey methodology and index construction methodology are included in Appendix 5 of the 2023 LPI report available at: https://lpi.worldbank.org/report. Respondents evaluated the quality of trade and transport related infrastructure (e.g. ports, railroads, roads, information technology), on a rating ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Scores are averaged across all respondents.;Data are available online at: https://lpi.worldbank.org/. Summary results are published in World Bank (2023): Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy, The Logistics Performance Index and Its Indicators.;Unweighted average;

Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) in Bangladesh was reported at 2.3 1=low to 5=high in 2022, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Bangladesh - Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on July of 2025.

This statistic describes the Global Innovation Index ranking for infrastructure in the Middle East and North Africa region as of 2017, by country. As of 2017, the United Arab Emirates scored ** on the Global Innovation Index for infrastructure.

The average for 2019 based on 40 countries was 5.07 points. The highest value was in the Netherlands: 6.4 points and the lowest value was in Bosnia and Herzegovina: 3.5 points. The indicator is available from 2006 to 2019. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Morocco registered an overall index score of 72.6 in infrastructure in the 2019 global competitiveness index. In terms of utility infrastructure, access to electricity and quality supply of electricity achieved the highest scores of 99 points and 88.4 points, respectively. On the other hand, transport infrastructure was highest when considering road connectivity, which attained a score of 88.5 points ranking it 30th in the world. The global competitiveness index measures factors and attributes that drive productivity, growth, and human development in a given country on a scale from 0-100, where 100 represents an ideal state with no constraints to productivity.

Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) in World was reported at 2.9216 1=low to 5=high in 2022, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. World - Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on August of 2025.

Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) in Cyprus was reported at 2.8 1=low to 5=high in 2022, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Cyprus - Logistics performance index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (1=low to 5=high) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on August of 2025.