The Logistic Performance Index Over The Years 2007 To 2018 For Netherland, Singapore, Denmark, United Kingdom and Finland

The Logistic
Performance Index Over

The Years 2007 to 2018
Netherlands, Singapore,
United Kingdom, Denmark
and Finland
East West University
The Logistic Performance Index Over the Years 2007 to 2018 for
Netherland, Singapore, Denmark, United Kingdom and Finland
ITB 301 (Section 1)
Prepared for
Jashim Uddin, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Business Administration
Prepared by
Name I.D Participation
Noshin Saiyara 2019-2-10-027 20%
Md. Asif – Ur – Rashid Allis 2019-2-10-023 20%
Md. Shihab Uddin 2019-2-10-113 20%
Md. Oly Ullah 2019-2-10-098 20%
Azzaz Hossain Sihab 2019-2-10-015 20%
Bachelor of Business Administration

EAST WEST UNIVERSITY
Section: 1
4 September 2021
Letter of Transmittal
Jashim Uddin, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Business Administration
Aftabnagar, Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh
Subject: Term Paper on “The Logistic Performance Index Over The Years 2007 to 2018 for
Netherland, Singapore, Denmark, United Kingdom and Finland”.
Dear Sir,
We are pleased to submit the term paper on “The Logistic Performance Index Over The Years
2007 to 2018 for Netherland, Singapore, Denmark, United Kingdom and Finland”. We did
the term paper on World Bank LPI from 2007 to 2018. We conducted our analysis on Netherlands,
Singapore, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland. In this report, we talked about the overall
logistic performance of these countries, their LPI score and rank according to their logistic
performance components and compared their overall outcome.
We sincerely hope that you will find the term paper informational, and worthy of your time. If you
need any further information or clarification, please do contact us, we are always available.
Sincerely,
Noshin Saiyara
(2019-2-10-027)
On behalf of the group
i
Acknowledgment
Any comprehensive work such as data or performance analysis of any organization or any country
must owe credit to a multitude of people. Our gratitude must be shown to some people, who helped
us without their benefit to complete the report successfully. We are especially indebted to those
respective persons of ‘organization’. While conducting the study, we had visited many websites.
We want to thank those people who prepared those informative and ingenious places which help
us in all the steps of our study.
We sincerely express our thanks to our honorable course instructor Jashim Uddin, PhD, Associate
Professor, Department of Business Administration, East West University for giving us the task to
prepare this project. It is an experience which will certainly help us in the future. It will enhance
our skills to a great extent.
We have provided and accumulated all the necessary information for the accomplishment of this
project. We have tried our best to prepare this Term Paper by applying our best efforts. When we
prepared the paper, we faced many new items, and honestly, we have tried to gather all the
necessary information to make it valuable for us as well as for everyone else.
ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary: .................................................................................................................................. iv
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Origin of the report ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objective of the Study .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Limitation of the Study ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.5 Methodology of the Study .................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 Discussion............................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 3
LPI Analysis of Netherlands from 2007-2018........................................................................................... 3
LPI analysis of Singapore from 2007-2018 ............................................................................................... 5
LPI Analysis of Denmark from 2007-2018 ............................................................................................... 7
LPI analysis of United Kingdom from 2007-2018 .................................................................................. 10
LPI Analysis of Finland from 2007-2018 ................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Comparison Among the Nations of their Performance on LPI ...................................................... 14
Comparison of Overall LPI Score and Ranking .................................................................................... 14
Comparison of Customs Score and Ranking .......................................................................................... 17
Comparison of Infrastructure Score and Ranking ................................................................................ 19
Comparison of International Shipment Score and Ranking................................................................. 21
Comparison of Logistic Quality and Competence Score and Ranking ................................................ 23
Comparison of Tracking and Tracing Score and Ranking ................................................................... 26
Comparison of Timeliness Score and Ranking ...................................................................................... 28
4.0 Findings................................................................................................................................................ 30
5.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 30
Reference ................................................................................................................................................... 31
iii
Executive Summary:
This term paper has addressed the data analysis of the World Bank’s Logistic Performance Index
(LPI) of five countries: Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland.
Expanding the practical knowledge by implementing theoretical knowledge through the learning
program about a country makes a student competitive with the world’s industrial sector. That
program not only increases the knowledge but also gives the idea about a countries international
business, logistic performance, their weakness and strength, different sectors of import-export and
so on. The counties of the world are dependent on each other for business. Their logistic service
component depends on each other by importing and exporting and overall performance. There is
huge competition among the nations. In this paper, we discussed the performance on the LPI of
the World Bank of Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland. We also
learned about the score and rank of these countries based on their performance on Overall LPI,
Customs, Infrastructure, International shipments, Logistics quality, and competence, tracking and
tracing, and Timeliness. We also did a comparison among the nations based on their overall logistic
performance from 2007 to 2018. Overall, we had a brief idea about of Logistic Performance Index
during our research.
iv
1.0 Introduction
LPI provides quantitative information through which supply chain material performance is
measured. There are two levels: Domestic LPI and International LPI. International LPI is to
evaluate the country based on trading partners, which is mainly covered with six criteria in
determining friendships of logistics environment in the outside of the country. These are -
Infrastructure, Customs, International shipments, Logistics quality and competence, Timeliness &
Tracking and Tracing. It is ranked from 1 to 160.
For doing this term paper we worked on five countries that are Netherlands, Singapore, UK,
Denmark, and Finland. It gives an analysis of the five country’s logistics performance that affect
Infrastructure, Customs, International shipments, Logistics quality and competence, Timeliness &
Tracking and Tracing. After that, we analyzed their score and rank for these components and did a
comparison between five countries.
1.1 Origin of the report

This report was given to us as a requirement for the completion of the course “International
Business” of the Bachelor of Business Administration program of East West University. This
report was assigned by our course instructor Jashim Uddin, Associate Professor, Department of
Business Administration, East West University, and sir approved to do it in groups.
1.2 Objective of the Study

The study's main goal is to determine the changes in different factors of the logistics performance
index (LPI) of the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Netherland, Singapore over the 12 years.
All these factors include the countries overall LPI score, Customs, Infrastructure, International
shipment, Logistics quality and competence, Tracking and Tracing, Timeliness
1.3 Scope of the Study

This analysis will assist in the identification of changes in the International LPI of five countries
providing proper data. Our scope was only highlighting the fluctuations of the International
Logistics Performance Index from 2007 to 2018.
1.4 Limitation of the Study

• Lack of primary data: As the world is suffering from a pandemic, we had to collect our
data from the Internet and limited organization source.
• Time Constraint: To complete the study, time was limited. It was tough to know detail
about t the overall training and development of an organization.
• Lack of Cooperation: As most of the organization and countries tries to keep its inside
information secret it was tough to get all the information we needed. So, we had to do our
research depending on the available information we had.
1
1.5 Methodology of the Study
The type of methods used in this term paper is mainly of an analytical and theoretical nature. Both
primary and secondary data analysis was selected as the basic research method.
• Primary data collection: Faculty given data set in the classroom

• Secondary data collection: Most of the secondary data was obtained from the websites.
2.0 Literature Review

According to an article from ‘Semantic scholar’ website, the Logistics Performance Index (LPI)
analyses the difference between countries in terms of customs procedures, logistics costs, and
quality of the infrastructure for overland and maritime transport. An article from the ‘Taylor &
Francis Online’ website says that logistics and transport increasingly play a pivotal role in
international trade relations. An article from ‘worldbank.org’ says, ‘Logistics performance
continues to converge—slowly’. According to a research paper from the ‘Research Gate” website,
‘Logistics disparity among nations has caused connectivity problems in trade routes and
subsequent time delay and additional logistics costs in global supply chains.
3.0 Discussion
The LPI is made as a comparison of logistics environment friendliness. It is based on the reactions
of operators. Operators have rich experience in the depth of the environment of the supply
environment, the quality of the environment of their current operations, quality evaluation and
trade, and supply of trade and supply. The local LPI is the investigation of the national logical
environment that evaluates four primary areas - supply, supply discipline, border method, and
deadline and infrastructure. Every two years, the World Bank publishes the Logistic Performance
Index. 167 countries can be compared using the combined LPI. The top 10 LPI countries are
Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom,
Denmark, and Finland.
LPI is designed as an accessible comparative equipment by the World Bank to provide the
necessary issues and opportunities in logistics services of countries through this, and what to do to
make progress. International LPI is used to assess a country's trading partners. This is an average
value of the country's performances which is based on six major dimensions for determining
logistics environment relations outside of the country. Infrastructure, Customs, International
shipping, Logistics quality and competency, Timeliness, and Tracking and Tracing are only a few
of them. From 1 to 160, it is ranked. It rates a country's logistics supply chain's performance from
two perspectives: international and domestic.
The International Logistics Performance Index (ILPI) gives qualitative assessments of a
country in six areas by its trading partners-logistics professionals based outside the country.
In domestic LPI a country's qualitative and quantitative assessments are provided by logistics
specialists working within the country. It contains thorough information on the logistics
environment, essential logistical operations, institutions, and time and cost statistics for
performance. Until 2018, the LPI ranked countries based on six aspects of commerce, including
customs performance, infrastructure quality, and shipment punctuality. The ranking's data
2
originates from a poll of logistics experts who were asked questions about the overseas nations
where they work.
The International LPI's components were chosen based on contemporary theoretical and empirical
research as well as the practical experience of international freight forwarding logistics
professionals. They are as follows:
• Customs: The speed with which customs and border management procedures are
completed.
• Infrastructure: Refers to the state of a country's commercial and transportation networks.
• Ease of arranging shipments: The ease with which you may arrange low-cost shipments.
• Quality of logistics services: Transportation, shipping, and customs clearance are examples
of logistical services with varying levels of expertise and quality.
• Tracking and tracing: The capacity to track and trace consignments is known as tracking
and tracing.
• Timeliness: The frequency with which shipments arrive at their destinations on time or
ahead of schedule.
The LPI aggregates data into a single indicator that may be utilized for cross-country comparisons
using normal statistical procedures.
3.1 Analysis
We looked at the LPIs of the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland
in this paper. The LPI was published in the following years: 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018.
We discussed and analyzed each component based on each country’s score and rank in the LPI.
LPI Analysis of Netherlands from 2007-2018

Within a 300-mile radius around Rotterdam, about 160 million people exist. This represents more
than half of the EU's population. As a result, the Netherlands is ideally situated as a transit point
for commodities entering the EU. Furthermore, Dutch items are readily available for export
throughout the region. Overall, 80% of Dutch exports are to other EU countries, while 70% of
commodities imported into the Netherlands are from the EU. The Dutch are the United States'
ninth-largest trading partner and Europe's third largest. With an annual trade surplus of $10 billion,
the United States has the greatest trade surplus with the Netherlands. Fuel (29 percent of total
imports), machinery (26 percent), food and live animals (8.6%), pharmaceuticals, and electronics
are the Netherlands' largest imports. Ornamental plants and flowers (€5.8 billion), dairy products
and eggs (€4.3 billion), meat (€4.0 billion), and vegetables (€3.5 billion) are the most profitable
export categories for the Netherlands.
3
Year overall LPI Customs Infrastructure International Logistics Tracking Timeliness
score shipments quality and and tracing
competence
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
2007 4.18 2 3.99 1 4.29 1 4.05 1 4.25 1 4.14 4 4.38 5
2010 4.07 4 3.98 4 4.25 2 3.61 11 4.15 3 4.12 9 4.41 6
2012 4.02 5 3.85 8 4.15 3 3.86 3 4.05 7 4.12 2 4.15 12
2014 4.05 2 3.96 4 4.23 3 3.64 11 4.13 2 4.07 6 4.24 6
2016 4.19 4 4.12 3 4.29 2 4.94 6 4.22 3 4.17 6 4.41 5
2018 4.02 6 3.92 5 4.21 4 3.68 11 4.09 5 4.02 11 4.25 11
LPI for Netherland
The Logistics Performance Index made in 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 are showing
the score and rank of the Netherlands by the components overall LPI, customs, infrastructure,
international shipment, logistic quality and competence, tracing and tracking, and timeliness. If
the data are being analyzed throughout the 12 years, there were gradual changes and ups-downs in
the scores which affected the rank achieved by the country.
In terms of the Overall LPI score, starting from 2007, the Netherlands LPI score was 4.18, which
helped them to take 2nd position in LPI Index. In the next two years, LPI decreases slightly. After
that, from 2014 to 2016, it increases respectively, and in 2016, it peaks the highest score, 4.19 and
in 2012 and 2018, it gets the lowest score that is 4.02. And in their overall ranking Netherland get
2nd position in LPI Index. In 2010 it got 4th despite having a decline in the score. In the year 2012,
the rank was 5th. In 2014 it again got 2nd position. In 2016 rank was 4th, and in 2018 the rank was
6th position.
Another component in the LPI index is Customs. In 2007, Netherland scored 3.99 and ranked
number 1 in customs. It remained the same in 2010 which is 3.98, but the rank decreased to 4th
position. In 2012 it slightly decreased, and the score was 3.85 and rank was 8. In 2014 and 2016,
scores increased by 3.96 and 4.12 and the rank was 4 and 3. In 2018 Netherland’s customs score
decreased to 3.92, and the rank was 5.
In terms of Infrastructure, the Netherlands score, and position was stable over the years. In 2007
Netherland was the number 1 in position in the LPI index. Their score was 4.2. In 2010 their score
slightly decreased to 4.25, and the rank was 2. In 2012 Netherland got their lowest score in
Infrastructure that was 4.15, and the rank was3. In 2014 and 2016 Netherland improved their
Infrastructure rapidly and score incresed to 4.23 and 4.29 and rank was 3 and 2. In 2018 the score
decreased 4.21, and the rank was 4th position.
4
In the case of international shipments, Netherland has increased over the 12 years. In 2007
Netherland achieved 1st position with a 4.01 score in International Shipment Index. In 2010 the
score was 3.61 and ranked was 11 that was get massive decrease for Netherland. In 2012
Netherlands had improved, and the score was 3.86, and the rank was 3rd. In 2014 the score slightly
decreased, that was 3.64 and rank was 11. In 2016 the Netherland had significantly improved, and
the score and rank were 4.94 and 6th position. In 2018 Again Netherlands decrease the score was
3.68, and the rank was 11th position.
In terms of Logistics quality and competence, Netherland had a comparatively stable score with a
slight change over the years. In 2007 Netherland get the highest peak score that is 4.25 and the
rank was 1. In 2010 and 2012 the score decreases slightly to 4.15 and 4.05, the rank was 3 and 7.
In 2014 and 2016 the score slightly increases to 4.13 and 4.22 the rank was 2 and 3. In 2018 again
Logistics quality and competence LPI index decreases, and the score was 4.09 and the rank was 5.
Another component in the LPI index is Tracking and tracing. From 2007 to 2014 the score
continuously decreases which was 4.14,4.12,4.12 and 4.07. In 2016 Netherland pick their highest
score in the tracking and tracing Index that is 4.14 and the rank was 6. In 2018 Netherland get the
lowest score that is 4.02 and their position was 11.
The last component in the LPI Index is Timeliness. Netherlands scores and position was stable
over the years. In 2007 the score was 4.38 and the rank was 5th position. In 2010 the score increases
to 4.41 and the position was 6. In 2012 the score decreases to 4.15 and it is the lowest Score for
Netherland in the timeliness Index and the rank was 11th. In 2014 and 2016 the score rapidly
increases to 4.24 and 4.41.and the rank was 6th and 5th position. In 2018 score slightly decreases
to 4.25 that’s why the rank also decreased to 11th position.
After the analysis of Netherlands LPI, it can be said that Netherland had to Improve some areas
but, to sum up, it can be easily said that their performance has fluctuated over time.
LPI analysis of Singapore from 2007-2018

Singapore occupies a unique position in the global economy and plays a critical role as a corporate
hub in Asia. The city-state has long been recognized as a worldwide economic hub, with extensive
infrastructure, political stability, open business regulations, a competent workforce, English as the
primary working language, and intellectual property rights protection. Singapore has a solid
reputation as a financial and regional commercial center. It is the world's busiest port and a
prominent investment destination in the Asia Pacific. The country is the world's 16th largest
importer and 15th largest exporter (WTO, 2020). Electronic integrated circuits and micro
assemblies, electrical machinery and equipment, mineral fuels, chemicals, optical and medical
equipment, transportation, business services, travel, and financial services are the most common
exports. Integrated circuits, refined petroleum, electrical machinery/equipment, turbojets and
turbo-propellers, business services, transportation, travel, royalties, and license fees, on the other
hand, led imports.
5
Year Overall LPI Customs Infrastructure International Logistics Tracking and Timeliness
shipments quality and tracing
competence
score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank
2018 4.00 7 3.89 6 4.06 6 3.58 15 4.10 3 4.08 8 4.32 6
2016 4.14 5 4.18 1 4.20 6 3.96 5 4.09 5 4.05 10 4.40 6
2014 4.00 5 4.01 3 4.28 2 3.70 6 3.97 8 3.90 11 4.25 9
2012 4.13 1 4.10 1 4.15 2 3.99 2 4.07 6 4.07 6 4.39 1

2010 4.09 2 4.02 2 4.22 4 3.86 1 4.12 6 4.15 6 4.23 14
2007 4.19 1 3.90 3 4.27 2 4.04 2 4.21 2 4.25 1 4.53 1
LPI for Singapore
the score and rank of Singapore by the components overall LPI, customs, infrastructure,
international shipment, logistic quality and competence, tracking and tracing, and timeliness. If
the data are being analyzed it can be seen that throughout the 12 years, there were gradual changes
and ups-downs in the scores which affected the rank achieved by the country.
The overall LPI score of Singapore fluctuated over the years as the country scored 4.19 in 2007
which steadily decreased in 2010 as it scored 4.09. And a slight increase in 2012 scoring 4.13.
Then it decreased to 4.00 in 2014. The score at overall LPI significantly increased as it scored 4.14
in 2016. Then again it declined in 2018 scoring 4.00. In terms of ranking in the overall LPI of
Singapore, it also fluctuated over the years achieving the 1st position in 2007 and 2012. It ranked
at 2 in 2010 followed by a significant decrease in the rank in 2014 and 2016 and the rank in terms
of overall LPI was the same in the year 2014 and 2016 as Singapore ranked at 5. It reached its
lowest rank which is 7 in 2018.
The score at customs was 3.90 in 2007. There was a slight increase in 2010 and 2012 as it scored
4.02 and 4.10 followed by a significant decrease in 2014 which was 4.01. Singapore reached its
peak score in 2016 which was 4.18. Then again it declined in 2018 scoring 3.89. Having a stable
score, it ranked at 3 in 2007 and second position in 2010. Then it ranked 3 in 2014 again followed
by a sharp increase in the rank as it achieved the First position in 2012 and 2016. Then again
Singapore significantly dropped from the First position and ended up ranking at 6 in 2018.
In terms of infrastructure, the country's scores increased over the years as it scored 4.27 in 2007
and continuously decreased to 4.22 and 4.15 in 2010 and 2012. The score at infrastructure
significantly increased and reached a peak score of 4.28 in 2014. Then the score significantly
decreased as it scored 4.20 in 2016 and reached the lowest score as it declined to 4.06 in 2018. The
ranking also significantly changed as Singapore ranked at 2 in 2007 terms of infrastructure then
followed by a decline in ranking it ranked 4 in 2010. Then there was a significant increase in the
ranking as Singapore ranked higher at second position in 2012 and 2014 continuously. Then it
declined and reached the 6th position in rank in 2016 and 2018.
6
In terms of international shipments, Singapore had a comparatively stable score with a slight
change over the years. In 2007 it scored 4.04 followed by a decline scoring 3.86 in 2010 and a
slight increase in 2012 scoring 3.99. Then it decreased to 3.70 in 2014. The score at international
shipments significantly increased as it scored 3.96 in 2016. Then again it declined in 2018 scoring
3.58. The ranking had a significant change over the years as it ranked at 2 in 2007. Then with a
slight increase, it ranked at the first position in 2010 then steadily declined at 2 in 2012. Then there
was a significant decrease in the ranking as Singapore ranked at 6 and 5 in 2014 and 2016
respectively. Then it declined and reached the 15th position in rank in 2018.
The score of logistics quality and competence has changed over the 12 years. Scoring a peak score
of 4.21 in 2007, it declined continuously to score 4.12,4.07 and 3.97 in 2010,2012, and 2014. And
increased throughout the years 2016 and 2018 respectively which were 4.09 and 4.10. The rank in
terms of logistics quality and competence was 2 in the year 2007. The rank was the same in the
years 2010 and 2012 as Singapore ranked at 6 with increasing in 2014,2016, and 2018 ranking at
8, 5, and 3 respectively.
There was a slight change in the score of tracking and tracing as it scored 4.25 and 4.15 in 2007
and 2010. There was a slight decrease in 2012 and 2014 as it scored 4.07 and 3.90 followed by a
significant increase in 2016 and 2018 as Singapore scored 4.05 and 4.08 respectively. It reached a
higher rank at First position in 2007 which fluctuated over the years and reached its lowest rank at
11 in 2014 and ended up ranking at 8 in 2018.
In terms of timeliness, Singapore had a comparatively stable score with a slight change over the
years. In 2007 it scored 4.53 which was a peak score followed by a decline scoring 4.23 in 2010
and a slight increase in 2012 scoring 4.39. Then it decreased to 4.25 in 2014. The score at
timeliness significantly increased as it scored 4.40 in 2016. Then again it declined in 2018 scoring
4.32. It reached a higher rank at First position in 2007 and 2012 which fluctuated over the years.
Singapore had a comparatively stable rank over the 2016 and 2018 period which was ranked at 6.
To conclude it can be said that, over the 12 years, both the score and rank of Singapore have
fluctuated.
LPI Analysis of Denmark from 2007-2018

Denmark has evolved into an affluent and modern country that is actively involved in Europe's
general, political, and economic integration. This major European nation has become a tempting
site for foreign business investors because its economy has been doing well. Metal, food
manufacturing, textiles and clothing, electronics, building, woodwork, pharmacology, and medical
equipment are just a few of Denmark's significant industries to investigate. Per the world bank
statistics, Denmark scored fourth out of 180 countries in the ease of doing business index in 2019.
To put it another way, it is one of the greatest countries in which to do business. It is also noted
for having the highest employment rate in Europe, at over 75%.
Table 1LPI for Denmark
7
LPI for Denmark:
Year Overall Overall Customs Infrastructure International Logistics Tracking and Timeliness
LPI LPI shipments quality and tracing
competence
score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score rank
2018 3.99 8 3.92 4 3.96 17 3.53 19 4.01 9 4.18 3 4.41 2
2016 3.82 17 3.82 14 3.75 24 3.66 15 4.01 9 3.74 25 3.92 30
2014 3.78 17 3.79 13 3.82 17 3.65 9 3.74 18 3.36 36 4.39 3
2012 4.02 6 3.93 4 4.07 10 3.70 8 4.14 2 4.10 4 4.21 7
2010 3.85 5 3.58 19 3.99 15 3.46 16 3.83 15 3.94 18 3.94 18
2007 3.86 13 3.97 2 3.82 14 3.67 15 3.83 15 3.76 17 4.11 19
In the LPI’s (logistics performance index) components (Overall LPI score, Customs,
Infrastructure, International shipmate, Logistics quality and competence, Tracking and tracing,
Timeliness) by World Bank from the year 2007-2018 we can see Denmark’s overview.
The first component is the overall LPI score. Starting from the year 2007, Denmark’s LPI score
was 3.86 which remained the same in the year 2010 with a score of 3.85. there was a huge increase
in 2012 (4.02), then again in 2014, the overall LPI score moved towards decrease with the score
of 3.78. the overall LPI score although was better in 2014 than in the years 2007 and 2010. In 2016
LPI increased by a minimum amount. The score was 3.82 and in 2018 the score was 3.99 which is
only .03 less than the year 2012. So, 2012 was the year with the highest scored year for Denmark
in the case of overall LPI score. Denmark ranked number 13 in 2007 in the LPI index. Despite the
minimum or no change in LPI score the country’s ranked at number 16 which is behind the ranking
of the year 2007. With the highest score for LPI in 2012 for Denmark compared to the other years
it ranked at number 4. In the year 2014, the rank was 17 which was followed by the year 2016.
Lastly in the year, 2018 Denmark ranked at number 8.
Another component in the LPI index is Customs. In 2007 Denmark scored 3.97 and ranked number
2 in customs, but in the year 2010 there was a significant difference and decrease in score for
Denmark, the country scored 3.58 and ranked at number 19. In 2012 the score got better than the
previous year and Denmark had scored 3.98 and ranked at number 4. In 2014 the score in the case
of customs decreased a bit and it was 3.79 but the rank was 13 which is better than the year 2010
but way behind than the rank of 2012 and 2007. Denmark had ranked 3.82 in 2016 but the rank
was like the previous year (2014) 14. In 2018 Denmark improved its score to 3.92 and ranked at
number 4.
In the case of Infrastructure Denmark scored 3.82 and ranked 14th. In 2010 the score improved to
3.99 but the rank decreased to 19th which was lower than the year 2007 where the score was less
than this year. In 2012 Denmark’s score increased significantly to 4.07 and rank improved to 10th
8
which was by far the best Denmark had done in infrastructure. Again in 2014, the score decreased
to 3.82 and Denmark ranked a number 17. In 2016 Denmark scored 3.75 which is Denmark’s
lowest till now and ranked at number 24. So, it is a massive decrease for Denmark. In 2018 the
score improved a bit and Denmark got 3.96 and had ranked at number 17 which is the same as the
rank of 2014.
In terms of International shipment, Denmark’s score and position fluctuated over the years. In
2007 the country scored 3.67 and ranked at number 15. In 2010 the score was 3.46 which is less
than 2007 and the rank was 16. In 2012 the score increased significantly and was 3.70 with the
rank of 8th. again in 2014 the score decreased and was 3.65 with the rank of 9th one position behind
the previous year. In 2016 Denmark scored 3.66 and ranked at number 15 and in 2018 the score
decreased to 3.53 with the rank of 19th. So, the score and rank decreased over the years for
Denmark in terms of international shipment.
In the case of Logistics services, Denmark’s score was better and stable than its other components.
The score and rank were stable for the first 3 years from 2007 to 2010. In 2007 Denmark’s score
was 3.83 and LPI rank was 15. In 2010 Denmark scored 3.83 which is the same as the year 2007
with a similar ranking of 15. In 2012 the score took a step towards improvement with the score of
4.14 and ranked at the 2nd position. in 2014 the score decreased a lot and it was 3.74 and the rank
was 18 which was Denmark’s lowest rank among these years. in 2016 the score again improved
to 4.01 and Denmark had ranked at number 9 and it stayed constantly the same till 2018 with the
same score and rank.
There was a significant change in the score of tracking and tracing as the years passed by and the
score sometimes increased and decreased and was never stable. In 2007 the country’s LPI score
was 3.76 with the rank of number 17. In 2010 the score increased to 3.94 but the rank decreased
to 18th position. in 2012 the score improved a lot and was 4.10 and Denmark had hit the 4th position.
But in 2014 there was a noticeable decrease in the score of 3.36 with ranking at number 36. In
2016 the score was better than the previous score of 3.74 and the rank was 25th. finally, in 2018
Denmark score 4.18 and ranked at number 3 which is a massive improvement in terms of tracking
and tracing.
The last component in the LPI Index is Timeliness. Denmark’s score was quite exemplary and
shifting here from the year 2007 – 2018. Denmark scored 4.11 in 2007 and ranked at number 19.
In 2010 the country improved its timeliness and scored 4.38 also ranked at 7th position. In 2012
despite the decrease of score to 4.21than 2010 the rank remained the same at number 7. 2014
Denmark scored 4.39 and achieved the position of 3rd ranking country. After the good year, the
score and rank took a step towards downfall to 3.92(score) and 30(rank). In 2018 Denmark again
improved its score and had got 4.41 and ranked at 2nd position the best for Denmark in Timeliness.
To sum up, Denmark's score and ranking have changed towards improvement and deterioration
throughout the last 12 years.
9
LPI analysis of United Kingdom from 2007-2018
According to the World Bank, the United Kingdom is a major international trading power with the
world's fifth-largest economy. The United Kingdom became an appealing investment destination
for global investors due to the strength of the British pound as well as the status of the economy.
The kingdom is one of the largest investment destinations in the globe. The United Kingdom has
had a trade deficit for decades because it has imported more products and services than it has
exported. The British government has implemented several initiatives to attract international
enterprises and investment. With foreign trade representing 64 percent of its GDP, the United
Kingdom is one of the most important nations in international trade. The United Kingdom is the
fifth-largest importer and eleventh exporter of goods in the world, and the second-largest exporter
and fifth-largest importer of commercial services in the world. Cars, Gas Turbines, Gold, Crude
Petroleum, and Packaged Medicaments are the top exports of the United Kingdom, while Gold,
Cars, Crude Petroleum, Refined Petroleum, and Broadcasting Equipment are the top imports.
LPI for the United Kingdom:
Year overall LPI Customs Infrastructure International Logistics Tracking Timeliness
shipments quality and and tracing
competence
2007 3.99 9 3.74 13 4.05 10 3.85 6 4.02 7 4.10 6 4.25 11
2010 3.95 8 3.74 11 3.95 16 3.66 8 3.92 9 4.13 7 4.37 8
2012 3.90 10 3.73 10 3.95 15 3.63 13 3.93 11 4.00 10 4.19 10
2014 4.01 4 3.94 5 4.16 6 3.63 12 4.03 5 4.08 5 4.33 7
2016 4.07 8 3.98 5 4.21 5 3.77 11 4.05 7 4.13 7 4.33 8
2018 3.99 9 3.77 11 4.03 8 3.67 13 4.05 7 4.11 4 4.33 5
the score and rank of the United Kingdom by the components overall LPI, customs, infrastructure,
international shipment, logistic quality and competence, tracing and tracking, and timeliness. If
the data are being analyzed, it can be seen that throughout the 12 years there were gradual changes
and ups-downs in the scores which affected the rank achieved by the country.
The overall LPI score of the UK fluctuated over the years as the country scored 3.99 in 2007 which
steadily decreased in 2010 as it scored 3.95 and reached the lowest score in 2010 which was 3.90.
In the next two years when the LPI was calculated, UK experienced a rise scoring 4.01 in 2014,
and reached its peak score in 2016 which was 4.07. Followed by a decrease in the score, it got 3.99
in 2018. In terms of ranking in the overall LPI of the UK, it also fluctuated over the years achieving
the 9th position in 2007 and then the 8th position in 2010 despite having a decline in the score. It
ranked at 10 in 2012 followed by a significant increase in the rank in 2014 as the UK reached its
10
peak by ranking at 4. Then it had a significant decline in the ranking in 2016 and 2018 as it ranked
at 8 and 9.
The score at customs remained stable in 2007 and 2010 as it scored 3.74 in both of the years. There
was a slight decrease in 2012 as it scored 3.73 followed by a significant increase in 2014 and 2016
as the UK scored 3.94 and reached its peak which was 3.98. Then again it declined in 2018 scoring
3.77. Despite having the same score, it ranked at 13 in 2007 and 11 in 2010. Then it ranked 10 in
2012 followed by a sharp increase in the rank as it achieved the position of 5 in 2014 and 2016.
Then again, the UK significantly dropped from the position and ended up ranking at 11 in 2018.
In terms of infrastructure, the country's scores increased over the years as it scored 4.05 in 2010
and decreased to 3.95 in 2012 and 2014. The score at infrastructure significantly increased as it
scored 4.16 in 2014 and reached a peak score of 4.21 in 2016. Then it declined to 4.03 in 2018.
The ranking also significantly changed as the UK ranked at 10 in 2007 terms of infrastructure then
followed by a decline in ranking it ranked 16 and 15 in 2010 and 2012. Then there was a significant
increase in the ranking as the UK ranked higher at 6 and 5 in 2014 and 2016 respectively. Then it
declined and reached the 8th position in rank.
In terms of international shipments, the United Kingdom had a comparatively stable score with a
slight change over the years. In 2007 it scored 3.85 followed by a decline scoring 3.66 in 2010 and
a slight decrease in 2012 and 2014 scoring 3.63. Then it increased to 3.77 in 2016 and again
decreased to 3.67 in 2018. The ranking had a significant decline over the years as it ranked at 6 in
2007 then steadily declined at 8 then 13 in 2010 and 2012. Then with a slight increase, it ranked
at 12 and 11 in 2014 and 2016 then again with a decline ranked 13 in 2018.
The score of logistics quality and competence has increased over the 12 years. Scoring 4.02 in
2007 it declined to score 3.92 and 3.93 in 2010 and 2012 and increased throughout the years 2014,
2016 and reached its peak score of 4.05 in 2018. The rank in terms of logistics quality and
competence same in the years 2007, 2016, and 2018 as the UK ranked at 7 with fluctuation in
2010,2012, and 2014 ranking at 9, 11, and 5 respectively.
There was a slight change in the score of tracking and tracing as it scored 4.10 and 4.13 in 2010
and 2012 and reached its lowest score of 4.00 in 2012. Then it steadily increases to 4.08 then 4.13
which was the highest score of the UK and scored 4.11 in 2018. It reached a higher rank over the
years as it ranked at 6 in 2007 which fluctuated over the years and reached its highest rank 4 in
2018.
In terms of timeliness, the UK had a comparatively stable score over the 2012 period than the rest
of the components. It scored 4.25, 4.37, and 4.19 in 2007, 2010, and 2012 then it remained stable
at 4.33 in 2014, 2016, and 2018. Despite having a stable score, the ranking has been significantly
changed as it reached a higher position in the rank throughout the years. It ranked at 11 in 2007
and with some fluctuation, in the middle, it reached its highest rank which is 5 in 2018.
To conclude it can be said that, over the 12 years, both the score and rank of the UK have
fluctuated.
11
LPI Analysis of Finland from 2007-2018
Finland, a member of the European Union since 1995, has transformed itself from a sleepy farm
and forestry economy to a global leader in technology and design. With international commerce
accounting for a third of its GDP, the country is deeply interwoven into the global economy.
Finland's business weight greatly outweighs its 5.5 million-strong population. Finland consistently
places first in international polls on education, quality of life, competitiveness, and transparency.
Food, petroleum, and petroleum products, chemicals, transportation equipment, iron and steel,
machinery, textile yarn and textiles, and cereals are among Finland's main imports. Germany,
Russia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and China are its key import partners. Transportation,
electronics, forestry, equipment, and chemicals are among Finland's most important export sectors.
LPI for Finland:
Year Logistics
Overall LPI International quality and Tracking
Score Customs Infrastructure Shipments competence and tracing Timeliness
2018 3.97 10 3.82 8 4.00 11 3.56 16 3.89 15 4.32 1 4.28 8
2016 3.92 15 4.01 4 4.01 16 3.51 30 3.88 16 4.04 11 4.14 16
2014 3.62 24 3.89 8 3.52 28 3.52 20 3.72 19 3.31 39 3.80 38
2012 4.05 3 3.98 2 4.12 6 3.85 4 4.14 1 4.14 1 4.10 15

3.89
2010 12 3.86 7 4.08 8 3.41 19 3.92 10 4.09 11 4.08 25
2007 3.82 15 3.68 14 3.81 17 3.30 30 3.85 13 4.17 2 4.18 14
The logistics performance index made in 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 are showing
both the score and rank of the Northern European country Finland by the components (overall LPI
score, customs, infrastructure, international shipment, logistic quality, and competence, tracing
and tracking, and timeliness). By analyzing the data, we can see there were changes and
fluctuations of the scores which caused the overall rank to change achieved by the country.
The overall LPI score of Finland fluctuated over the years as the country scored 3.82 in the year
2007 which steadily increased in the year 2010 and reached a level of 3.89. In the next two times
when the LPI was calculated Finland had faced a huge amount of fluctuation as in 2012, Finland
had their peak score of 4.05. Followed by a declining score of 3.62 which was their lowest. Again
in 2016 and 2018, Finland experienced a rise scoring 3.92 in the year 2016 and 3.97 in the year
2018. In terms of the overall LPI ranking of Finland, it also fluctuated over the years. Finland
achieved a position of 15th in the year 2007 followed by 12th in 2010. In the year 2012 Finland
reached their peak rank by achieving the 3rd position followed by its lowest position 24th in 2014.
They had a significant decline in the ranking in 2016 and 2018 as they ranked 15th and 10th.
12
Finland also had a fluctuation in their customs score as well. In 2007 their customs score was 3.68
which was the lowest for them. Followed by a steady increase of 3.86 and 3.98 over the next two
times when the customs score was calculated in the years 2010 and 2012. In 2014 the score
declined and reached a point of 3.89 but again in 2016, the score reached its peak point with 4.01
followed by a declining score of 3.82 in the year 2018. Finland had their lowest rank in 2007 by
achieving the 14th position. Then in 2010, their rank declined by a big margin as they achieved the
7th position followed by their peak rank of 2nd in 2012. In the years 2014, 2016, and 2018 their
rank position fluctuated as they achieved a position of 8th, 4th, and again 8th in the customs ranking.
The infrastructure score also was not stable for Finland over the years. In 2007 infrastructure score
was 3.81 followed by an increase of 4.08 in the year 2010. Over the next two times when the
infrastructure score was calculated Finland experienced a large fluctuation as they reached their
peak score in 2012 with 4.12 followed by their lowest in 2014 with 3.52. In 2016, the infrastructure
score increased by a relatively large margin with 4.01 followed by a slight decline with 4.00 in
2018. Finland ranked the 17th position in 2007 followed by a decline in 2010 with 8th position.
Finland had their peak rank position in 2012 with the 6th position followed by the lowest rank
position of 18th in 2014. Over the next two times in 2016 and 2018, their rank position continuously
declined as they had 16th and 11th positions.
In terms of international shipments, Finland started with the lowest score of 3.30 in 2007. But in
the next two times when the international shipments score was calculated Finland experienced a
steady rise as they scored 3.41 in 2010 and a peak score of 3.85 in 2012. This was followed by a
steady decline in the next two times with 3.52 in 2014 and 3.51 in 2016. Finland ended with a
rising score of 3.56 in the year 2018. Finland also had their lowest rank in 2007 where they had
they had the 30th position. Followed by a decline in 2010 when they achieved 19th position. In 2012
Finland had a large decline and reached their peak rank when they were at the 4th position.
Followed by a large increase when they achieved 20th position in 2014 and a combined lowest with
the year 2007 at 30th position in 2016. Finally, their rank again had a large decline as they achieved
16th position in 2018.
The logistics quality and competence of Finland started with a score of 3.85 in 2007 which steadily
increased over the next two time periods when they achieved a score of 3.92 in 2010 and 4.14 in
2012. Followed a declining score of 3.72 in 2014. But in the next two time periods, the logistics
quality and competence slowly started to go up as it was 3.88 in 2016 and 3.89 in 2018. In terms
of the logistics quality and competence rank, Finland started with the position 13th in 2007. Over
the next two time periods, their rank started to go down as they had the 10th position in 2010 and
the 1st position among all the countries in 2012. Followed by a large increase in the rank in 2014
when they had the 19th position but again in the next two-time period, Finland had a declining rank
when they achieved 16th position in 2016 and 15th position in 2018.
In terms of tracking and tracing Finland did well in half of the years from the given data. In 2007,
they had a score of 4.17 followed by a decline in 2010 when their score was 4.09. Again in 2012,
their score went up as it reached a level of 4.14 following that, in the very next period they
experienced a very large decline in the scores as they had 3.31 in 2014. But in 2016 and 2018 their
scores started to gradually increase as they had 4.04 and 4.32 which was the peak score for them.
Finland held the 2nd position among all the countries in 2007 followed by an increased 11th position
in 2010. Again in 2012, Finland reached the peak point as they held the 1st position among all. But
13
again in 2014, they experienced a large increase in the rankings as they went to the 39th position.
Over the next two time periods, Finland had a declining rank as they held 11th position in 2016
and got back the 1st position in 2018.
Timeliness score and rank also fluctuated for Finland over the years. In 2007, they had a score of
4.18 followed by a declining score of 4.08 in 2010. Again in 2012 the score went up by a slight
margin and reached 4.10 but the very next time the score went down by a big margin and reached
the lowest point with 3.80. In 2016 and 2018 the timeliness score for Finland started to increase
steadily as it was 4.14 and 4.28 which was the peak score for them. Finland started with 14 th
position in 2007 in the following two-time period their rank fluctuated as they had 25th position in
2010 and 15th position in 2012. In 2014 their rank was the lowest as they were at the 38th position
but again in the next two time periods, their position declined by a large margin as they held 16th
position in 2016 and their peak rank position of 8th in 2018.
After analyzing Finland’s logistics performance index over the following years it can be said that
in some areas, they have improved and in some areas, they are yet to improve. But to sum up, it
can be easily said that their performance has fluctuated over a different period.
3.2 Comparison Among the Nations of their Performance on LPI

The World Bank designed the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) as an accessible comparison tool
to help nations identify the issues and opportunities they face in logistics services, as well as what
they'll do to improve their performance. It's an average value of the country's performances
throughout six major dimensions. The World Bank issues the Logistics Performance Index per
two years. Comparisons can be made across 167 nations using the Aggregated LPI. Germany,
Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Japan Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland are
in the top ten LPI countries. From the LPI index, we can easily compare between these nations by
seeing their LPI score and rank. We can also make a comparison using different components of
the LPI.
Comparison of Overall LPI Score and Ranking

In the case of Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland, we have seen their
overall LPI and performance over the years from 2007-2018.
When we compare the performance of the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Denmark,
and Finland based on each year's LPI, we can see that the first component, the overall LPI score,
and rank, has fluctuated over time, with some years performing better than others. Singapore and
the Netherlands had a more consistent performance than the United Kingdom, Finland, and
Denmark. There was a slight performance differential between Finland and Denmark, which
changed from year to year. On the other side, the United Kingdom was relatively stable yet still
evolving. Singapore has consistently ranked among the top five countries, except for the final year
of 2018, when it ranked seventh with a score of 4.00 in the LPI, even though its score is
significantly higher than that of Finland, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. The Netherlands
likewise scored above 4.00 consistently and remained in the main five rankings except for the year
2018. So, the general execution was superior to the next three nations. United Kingdom's
exhibition was steady as per its position and score in the LPI however a bit frustrating than
14
Singapore and Netherlands as it couldn't hold the position and score between the top five nations
of LPI like Singapore and Netherlands. United Kingdom was consistent within the 8th to 9th rank
in the LPI except for the year 2014 where it secured the 4th rank by scoring 4.01 and came among
the best five counties. otherwise, it continuously scored less than Netherlands, Singapore and was
between 5-10 positioning nations which is behind the two major performing nations. In the case
of Finland, the performance was fluctuating over a long time but for 2012 when it had beaten the
United Kingdom and Denmark by getting the 3rd rank with a score of 4.05.
Years Netherland Singapore Denmark United Finland
Kingdom
2007 4.18 4.19 3.86 3.99
3.82
2010 4.07 4.09 3.85 3.95 3.89
2012 4.02 4.13 4.02 3.90 4.05
2014 4.05 4.00 3.78 4.01 3.62
2016 4.19 4.14 3.82 4.07 3.92
2018 4.02 4.00 3.99 3.99 3.97
Overall LPI score

4.3 4.19
4.18 4.19
4.13 4.14
4.2 4.09
4.07 4.07
4.05
4.02 4.05 4.02
4.1 3.99 4.01
4 4
3.99
3.95 3.97
4 3.89 3.9 3.92
3.86 3.85
3.9 3.82 3.82
3.78
3.8
3.7 3.62
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Netherland Singapore Denmark United kingdom Finland
On the other hand, we saw that the rank and score of Finland was always after Netherlands,
Singapore, and United Kingdom. Most of the time the rank was between 10th to 25th which is way
behind the overall ranking of Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom. So the performance was
better for these three countries than Finland. Denmark was better than Finland but not better than
Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom. Denmark’s performance was sometimes improving and
sometimes decreasing but from the LPI we can say that it was better than Finland as it secured
ranking between 5th to 10th position except for three years (2016,2014,2007) when it ranked 17th
twice from 2014-2016 and 13th in 2007. The scores also decreased but it was overall better than
Finland’s rank and score.
15
Kingdom
2007 2 1 13 9
15
2010 4 2 19 8
12
2012 5 1 4 10
3
2014 2 5 17 4
8
2016 4 5 17 8
4
2018 6 7 8 9
8
Overall LPI Rank

20
19
18
17 17
16
15
14
13
12 12
10 10
9 9
8 8 8 8 8
7
6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4
3
2 2 2 2
1 1
0
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
So, from these years, we can say, Singapore and Netherlands are the better performer than the
other countries for scoring and ranking highest most of the time in the World Bank's LPI in the
component of overall LPI score and Ranks. The United Kingdom performed better than Denmark
and Finland but not better than Singapore and Netherlands. Denmark was a better performer than
Finland. Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom were quite consistent with their overall
performance, score, and rank. on the other hand, Denmark and Finland were having a hard time
doing better than the three others and holding their place in the top five countries of LPI. There
was also a competition of being in the top ten ranked countries between Denmark and the United
Kingdom.
16
Comparison of Customs Score and Ranking
When we compare the performance of Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom, Denmark, and
Finland we can see fluctuations between each of the country in different years both in terms of
their score and rank.
United
Years Netherland Singapore Denmark Finland
Kingdom
2007 3.99 3.89 3.92 3.74 3.82
2010 3.98 4.18 3.82 3.74 4.01
2012 3.85 4.01 3.79 3.73 3.89
2014 3.96 4.1 3.93 3.94 3.98
2016 4.12 4.02 3.58 3.98 3.86
2018 3.92 3.9 3.97 3.77 3.68
Customs Score
4.3
4.2 4.18
4.1 4.1 4.12
4 3.99 4.01 4.01 4.02
3.98 3.98
3.96 3.98 3.97
3.92 3.94
3.93 3.92
3.9 3.89 3.89 3.9
3.85 3.86
3.8 3.82 3.82 3.79
3.74 3.74 3.77
3.7 3.73
3.68
3.6 3.58
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
When we look at the customs score, we can see that, over the course of the 12 years, Singapore
and the Netherlands had the least variation and a more constant score than the other three countries,
with both countries consistently scoring between 3.8 and 4.2. Denmark, on the other side, had the
biggest swings in its score, with a low of 3.58 and a high of 3.97. Singapore had the most consistent
score, coming in first three times out of the five countries. Immediately following Singapore,
Netherlands held the top scorer position twice as Denmark held the top scorer position once. On
the contrary, United Kingdom was the lowest scorer for three consecutive years. Denmark was the
17
lowest scorer for two consecutive years as Finland was the lowest scorer for once. Overall,
Singapore and the Netherlands outscored the other countries, while the United Kingdom and
Denmark scored the lowest.
United
kingdom
2007 1 6 4 13 8
2010 4 1 14 11 4
2012 8 3 13 10 8
2014 4 1 4 5 2
2016 3 2 19 5 7
2018 5 3 2 11 14
Customs Rank
20
19
18
16
14 14 14
13 13
12
11 11
10 10
8 8 8
7
6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1
0
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
The countries' rankings have shifted dramatically over the years. They rose to a higher position in
some years and fell to a lower position in others. Despite the fact that some countries had consistent
scores, each had significant ups and downs in their rankings. Singapore, as the highest-scoring of
the five countries, has also received a higher ranking, followed by the Netherlands. Each of these
countries has always remained in the top ten. Finland consequently looked excellent in the
rankings, only falling out of the top ten for once in 2018. On the contrary, Denmark had the most
fluctuations as they were in the top 10 for three years and out of the top 10 for the rest of the three
years. The United Kingdom also had a poor rank as they held the 5th position for 2014 and 2016
and in the rest of the years, they were out of the top 10 in the rankings.
Overall, among all the five countries with many ups and downs, both in terms of score and rank,
Singapore is the best-performing country, and the United Kingdom is the least performer. If we
18
rank these five countries according to their overall score and ranking from 2007 to 2018, it will be
Singapore, Netherland, Finland, Denmark, United Kingdom.
Comparison of Infrastructure Score and Ranking

We looked at the infrastructure and performance of the Netherlands, Singapore, the United
Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland from 2007 to 2018. When we look at the performance of the
Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland based on each year's LPI, we
can see that the component, the infrastructure score, and rank, The Netherlands and Singapore had
a more compatible performance than Denmark, United Kingdom, and Finland. The United
Kingdom and Denmark had a modest performance difference that fluctuated from year to year. As
its score is substantially higher than that of Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Finland, the
Netherlands has always been among the top five countries. Except for the year 2018, Singapore
continuously scored above 4.20. As a result, the overall execution was better than the next three
nations. The United Kingdom's exhibition was consistent in terms of its infrastructure position and
score, but it was more frustrating than Singapore and the Netherlands because it couldn't maintain
its position and score among the top five nations in terms of infrastructure, such as the Netherlands
and Singapore.
Kingdom
2007 4.29 4.27 3.82 4.05 3.81
2010 4.25 4.22 3.99 3.95 4.08
2012 4.15 4.15 4.07 3.95 4.12
2014 4.23 4.28 3.82 4.16 3.52
2016 4.29 4.20 3.75 4.21 4.01
2018 4.21 4.06 3.96 4.03 4.00
Infrastructure score
5
4.5
4.29
4.27 4.25 4.28
4.23 4.29
4.22 4.16 4.21
4.2 4.21
4.15
4.12
4.05 4.08 4.07 4.06
4.03
4 3.99
3.95 3.95 4.01 4
3.96
3.82
3.81 3.82
3.75
3.5 3.52
3
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
19
Except for the years 2012 and2010, when it was ranked 15th and 16th by the same score of 3.95
and dropped out of the top ten countries, the United Kingdom consistently ranked 5th to 10th in
infrastructure. Otherwise, it consistently performed lower than the Netherlands and Singapore and
was ranked between 5 and 10 places behind the two top performers. Finland's performance
fluctuated throughout time, but in 2012 and2010, it beat the United Kingdom and Denmark by
receiving the 6th and 8th rankings respectively with scores of 4.12 and 4.08. Otherwise, Finland's
rank and score were constantly behind the Netherlands, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The
overall position of the Netherlands, Singapore, and the United Kingdom were between 11th and
28th most of the time. As a result, these three countries fared better than Finland. Denmark did not
perform as well as the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, or Finland. Denmark's
performance fluctuated, sometimes improving and sometimes deteriorating, but in terms of
infrastructure, it was no better than the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, or Finland,
with rankings ranging from 10th to 25th over the years. The scores also dropped, and they were
no better than any of the top four counties in terms of rank and score.
Kingdom
2007 1 2 14 10 11
2010 2 4 15 16 16
2012 3 2 10 15 28
2014 3 2 17 6 6
2016 2 6 24 5 8
2018 4 6 17 8 17
Infrastructure Rank
30 28
24
25
20
17 17
16
15 15
14
15
11
10 10
10 8 8
6 6 6
5
4 4
5 3 3
2 2 2 2 2
1
0
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
20
So, based on these years, we can conclude that the Netherlands and Singapore outperform the other
nations in terms of scoring and ranking top in the World Bank's LPI component of infrastructure
score and rankings most of the time. The United Kingdom outperformed Finland and Denmark,
but not the Netherlands or Singapore. Finland fared better than Denmark in terms of performance.
The overall performance, score, and rank of the Netherlands and Singapore were quite stable.
Denmark and Finland, on the other hand, were struggling to outperform the other three nations and
maintain their positions in the top ten countries of the LPI. Between the United Kingdom and
Denmark, there was also a competition to be among the top ten ranked countries.
If we rank the five countries of the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and
Finland based on their infrastructure score and overall performance during the years (2007-2018),
the results will be: Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom, Finland, Denmark.
Comparison of International Shipment Score and Ranking

We can see that the component international shipping score and rank have fluctuated over time
Singapore and the Netherlands, performed more better than the UK, Denmark, and Finland. The
United Kingdom and Denmark had a modest performance difference that fluctuated from year to
year. Although Singapore’s score is significantly higher than that of the United Kingdom,
Denmark, and Finland, it has mostly ranked in the top five countries except for the previous two
years of 2016 and 2018 when it ranked first and second with a score of 3.86 and 4.04 in the LPI
respectively. Even though Netherlands’ score is substantially higher than that of the United
Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland, the Netherlands consistently ranks among the top 10 countries
except for the final year of 2018 when it ranked first with a score of 4.05 in international shipments.
Except for the years 2014 and 2018, Singapore received an overall score of 3.86 and remained in
the top five ranks for the most part. As a result, the overall execution was better than the next three
nations. Except for the years 2010 and 2007 when the UK achieved the 8th and 6th ranks by
scoring 3.66 and 3.85 respectively and dropped out of the top ten countries, the United Kingdom
consistently ranked 11th to 13th in international shipments. Otherwise, it consistently scored lower
than Singapore and the Netherlands and was ranked between 5 and 15 lagging the two top
performers.
Kingdom
2007 1 2 15 6
30
2010 11 1 16 8
19
2012 3 2 8 13
4
2014 11 6 9 12
20
2016 6 5 15 11
30
2018 11 15 19 13
16
21
International shipment rank
35
30 30
30
25
20
19 19
20
16 16
15 15 15
15 13 13
12
11 11 11 11
9
10 8 8
6 6 6
5
4
5 3
2 2
1 1
0
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Denmark did not perform as well as the Netherlands, Singapore, or the United Kingdom, but it
outperformed Finland. Denmark's performance fluctuated sometimes improving and sometimes
deteriorating but in terms of international shipping, it was no better than the Netherlands,
Singapore, or the United Kingdom with rankings ranging from 5th to 20th over the years. The
scores dropped as well but they were still better than Finland's rank and score. Finland's
performance had been inconsistent for a long time but in 2012 it outperformed the United Kingdom
and Denmark placing fourth with a score of 3.85. Otherwise, Finland's rank and score were
constantly behind the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Denmark. It was usually
rated 15th to 30th well behind the overall rankings of the Netherlands, Singapore, the United
Kingdom, and Denmark. As a result, these four countries fared better than Finland.
Kingdom
2007 4.05 4.04 3.67 3.85
3.30
2010 3.61 3.86 3.46 3.66
3.41
2012 3.86 3.99 3.70 3.63
3.85
2014 3.64 3.70 3.65 3.63
3.52
2016 3.94 3.96 3.66 3.77
3.51
2018 3.68 3.58 3.53 3.67
3.56
22
International shipment Score
4.5
4.05
4.04 3.99 3.96
3.94
4 3.85 3.86 3.86
3.85
3.77
3.67 3.66 3.7 3.7
3.65 3.66 3.68
3.67
3.61 3.63 3.64
3.63 3.58
3.56
3.53
3.52 3.51
3.46
3.41
3.5
3.3
2.5
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
So based on these years, we can conclude that the Netherlands and Singapore outperform the other
nations in terms of scoring and ranking top in the World Bank's LPI component of the international
shipment score and ranks most of the time. The United Kingdom outperformed Denmark and
Finland but not Singapore or the Netherlands. Finland was outperformed by Denmark. Singapore
and the Netherlands had a constant overall performance, score, and ranking. Denmark and Finland,
on the other hand, were struggling to outperform the other three nations and maintain their
positions in the top ten countries of the LPI. Between the United Kingdom and Denmark, there
was also a competition to be among the top ten ranked countries.
If we rank these five countries based on their international shipping score and rate them according
to their total performance over the years (2007-2018), the result will be: Singapore, Netherlands,
United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland.
Comparison of Logistic Quality and Competence Score and Ranking

During 12 years from 2007 to 2018, we have observed the fluctuating rates in the Logistics Quality
and Competence as well as Performance of the Netherlands and Singapore, the United Kingdom,
Denmark, and Finland.
23
Kingdom
2007 4.25 4.21 3.83 4.02 3.85
2010 4.15 4.12 3.83 3.92 3.92
2012 4.05 4.07 4.14 3.93 4.14
2014 4.13 3.97 3.74 4.03 3.72
2016 4.22 4.09 4.01 4.05 3.88
2018 4.09 4.1 4.01 4.05 3.89
Logistics quality and competence score

4.5
4.3
4.25
4.21 4.22
4.15 4.14 4.13
4.1 4.12 4.1
4.07 4.09 4.09
4.05 4.03 4.05 4.05
4.02 4.01 4.01
3.97
3.92 3.93
3.9 3.88 3.89
3.85
3.83 3.83
3.74
3.72
3.7
3.5
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
It can be demonstrated that the component, logistics quality, and competence score and rank, has
fluctuated over time with some years performing better than others when comparing the
performance of the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland based on
each year's logistics quality and competence score. The Netherlands and Singapore, unlike
Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Finland had more consistent outcomes. The Netherlands was
the most constant performer among the five countries in terms of both score and rank. Except for
2012, they have consistently placed themselves in the top five positions in the rankings. Singapore
has also excelled in terms of logistical quality and competence. Since they were able to maintain
a steady score across the six years, they were able to maintain their position in the top ten of the
rankings. As a counterpoint, the United Kingdom remained reasonably steady while still
developing. The United Kingdom likewise excelled in terms of quality and competence in logistics
services. Since they maintained a stable score, they were able to stay in the top 10 for most of the
years except for the year 2012. Denmark's logistics quality and competence have been volatile
from 2007 to 2018. They rose from 15th place in 2007 to 2nd place in 2012, then 18th place in
2014, 9th place in 2016, and 9th place in 2018. Thus, from 2007 through 2012, their Logistics
24
Competence rating rose but in 2014, it plummeted. Even though their rating decreased dramatically
in 2014, they were able to improve it afterward with an LPI rate of 4.01.
Kingdom
2007 1 2 15 7 13
2010 3 6 15 9 10
2012 7 6 2 11 1
2014 2 8 18 5 19
2016 3 5 9 7 16
2018 5 3 9 7 15
Logistics Quality and Competence Rank

20
19
18 18
16 16
15 15 15
14
13
12
11
10 10
9 9 9
8 8
7 7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5 5
4
3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1
0
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Even though Finland was ranked first in 2012, Finland's performance in terms of ranking was
inconsistent. Finland's logistics performance in 2014 was dismal, with a score of 3.72 putting it in
19th place. However, Finland has improved over time, moving from 19th to 15th place in 2018.
In terms of ranking, the Netherlands and Singapore were the constants in the rate and ranking
stated above. Besides, Netherland was also the steadiest country among the five countries in terms
of LPI ratings. Finland and Denmark were placed first and second, respectively, in 2012, however,
their positions did not remain the same during the following year. Nonetheless, Denmark was able
to maintain a higher consistent score than Finland.
Overall it can be seen that, in terms of Logistics Quality and Competence if we rank these five
countries it will be, Netherland, Singapore, United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland.
25
Comparison of Tracking and Tracing Score and Ranking
From the logistic performance index showing the scores and ranks of 167 countries for 12 years,
among the seven components, the tracking and tracing component measures the ability to track
and trace consignments of the countries. As we analyzed the data for the five countries
Netherlands, Singapore, Denmark, The United Kingdom, and Finland, if we compare their score
rank based on the score and rank for tracking and tracing, we can see that, from 2007 to 2018 there
were fluctuations in most of the country’s score and sharp decline or increase in the ranking of the
majority of the countries.

Kingdom
2007 4.14 4.08 4.18 4.10 4.32
2010 4.12 4.05 3.74 4.13 4.04
2012 4.12 3.90 3.36 4.00 3.31
2014 4.07 4.07 4.10 4.08 4.14
2016 4.17 4.15 3.94 4.13 4.09
2018 4.02 4.25 3.76 4.11 4.17
Tracking and tracing Score

4.5
4.32
4.25
4.2 4.18 4.17 4.17
4.14 4.13
4.12 4.12 4.14 4.15
4.13
4.1
4.08 4.1
4.08 4.09 4.11
4.05
4.04 4.07
4 4.02
3.9 3.94
3.9
3.74 3.76
3.6
3.36
3.3 3.31
3
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
If we compare the score on tracking and tracing, we can see that, over the 12 years, among the five
countries Netherland and Singapore had the least fluctuation and comparatively stable score than
the rest of the three countries as both countries always had a score between 4 to 4.15. On the other
hand, Denmark’s score has been fluctuated as starting from the peak score Denmark’s score has
26
faced a decline than increase and again decline over the 12 years. Netherland had the most
consistent performance followed by The United Kingdom and Singapore with a slight fluctuation
in the score. Singapore and Finland had comparatively inconsistent outcomes as they always
fluctuated over time. Among the five countries and the six times when the LPI is calculated both
Netherland and Finland had the highest score in tracking and tracing twice, while Singapore and
The United Kingdom had grabbed the highest score once, and Denmark has never obtained the
highest score. In contrast, if we look for the lowest score of each year, Denmark got the lowest
score thrice and The United Kingdom did not get the lowest score ever among these six times.
Overall Netherland has outperformed all the other four countries in terms of score and Denmark
was the least performing one.

Kingdom
2007 4 8 3 6 1
2010 9 10 25 7 11
2012 2 11 36 10 39
2014 6 6 4 5 1
2016 6 6 18 7 11
2018 11 1 17 4 2
Tracking and tracing Rank

45
40 39
35 36
30
25 25
20
18 17
15
10 11
10 11
10 11 11
8 9
6 7 6 7
6
5 4 5
4 4
3 2 2
0 1 1 1
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
In terms of ranking, the countries had a significant change over the years. Some years they obtained
a higher rank while in other years they declined to a lower position. Despite some countries having
a stable score, each of the countries had significant ups and downs in the ranking. Being the on the
top of the five countries in terms of score, Netherland also has gotten comparatively higher rank
followed by Singapore and The United Kingdom. Each three of these countries have always stayed
between the rank 1 to 11 and particularly the United Kingdom has always stayed in the top 10 in
27
terms of tracking and tracing. Both Denmark and Finland had a similar trend of fluctuation in rank.
Having the 3rd and 1st position in the ranking in 2007, both countries sharply fell to the lower
positions and reached their lowest rank 36 and 39 in 2012. Despite having an almost similar trend
Denmark has a comparatively lower rank than Finland throughout the years.
Netherland is the best-performing country and Denmark is the least performer. If we rank these
five countries according to their overall score and ranking from 2007 to 2018, it will be Netherland,
United Kingdom, Singapore, Finland, Denmark.
Comparison of Timeliness Score and Ranking

When we compare the performance of Netherlands, Singapore, United Kingdom, Denmark and
Finland we can see fluctuations like the previous components, between each of the country in
different years both in terms of their score and rank.
United
kingdom
2007 4.38 4.32 4.41 4.25 4.28
2010 4.41 4.4 3.92 4.37 4.14
2012 4.15 4.25 4.39 4.19 3.8
2014 4.24 4.39 4.21 4.33 4.1
2016 4.41 4.23 3.94 4.33 4.08
2018 4.25 4.53 4.11 4.33 4.18
Timeliness Score
5
4.7
4.53
4.4 4.41
4.38 4.41
4.4
4.37 4.39 4.39 4.41
4.32 4.33 4.33 4.33
4.28
4.25 4.25 4.24 4.25
4.19 4.21 4.23
4.14 4.15 4.18
4.1 4.1 4.08 4.11
3.92 3.94
3.8 3.8
3.5
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
28
If we compare the score on timeliness, we can see that, over the 12 years, among the five countries
Singapore and Netherlands had the least fluctuation and comparatively stable score than the rest
of the three countries as both countries always had a score between 4.2 to 4.5. On the other hand,
Denmark had the most fluctuations as it had the lowest score of 3.94 and a peak score of 4.41.
Netherlands, Singapore, and Denmark held the top scorer position twice. On the contrary,
Denmark and Finland both were the lowest scorers for two consecutive years as the United
Kingdom was the lowest scorer for once. Overall Singapore and Netherlands outperformed the
others in terms of score whereas Denmark had the most fluctuations, United Kingdom was also
consistent, but they never had the top scorer position and Finland also had a relatively lower score.
United
Kingdom
2007 5 6 2 11 8
2010 6 6 30 8 16
2012 12 9 3 10 38
2014 6 1 7 7 15
2016 5 14 18 8 25
2018 11 1 19 5 14
Timeliness Rank
40
38
35
30 30
25 25
20 19
18
15 16 15 14 14
11 12 11
10 10
9
8 8 7 8
5 6
5 6 6 5 5
2 3
0 1 1
2007 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
In terms of ranking, the countries had a significant change over the years. Some years they obtained
a higher rank while in other years they declined to a lower position. Despite some countries having
a stable score, each of the countries had significant ups and downs in the ranking. Being the on the
top of the five countries in terms of score, Singapore also has gotten comparatively higher rank
followed by the Netherlands. Each of these countries has always stayed between the rank 1 to 14.
United Kingdoms also did quite well in the rankings as only twice in 2017 and 2012 they were out
29
of the top 10 in the rankings. On the contrary, Denmark had the most fluctuations as they were in
the top 10 for three years and out of the top 10 for the rest of the three years. Finland had a relatively
poor rank compared to other countries as only for once in 2007 they were at the top 10 in the
rankings.
Singapore is the best-performing country and Finland is the least performer. If we rank these five
countries according to their overall score and ranking from 2007 to 2018, it will be Singapore,
Netherland, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Finland.
4.0 Findings
• The score and rank of each component for the Netherland, Singapore, Denmark, United
Kingdom, and Finland have fluctuated over the years with some years performing better
than others.
• All the five countries got the highest score in timeliness and lowest score in international
shipment among the five components in this 12 years period.
• In terms of overall LPI score Netherland and Singapoore are the highest scorer and in terms
of ranking, Netherland was the best-performing country while Denmark is the least among
them.
• In terms of infrastructure score, Netherland had the highest score whereas Denmark had
the lowest score and in ranking Netherland is highest and Finland is the least.
• In terms of international shipment, Singapore got the highest score while Finland got the
lowest and in ranking Netherland is the highest while Finland is the lowest.
• In terms of Custom score for these 12 years, Singapore was the highest scorer while United
Kingdom was the lowesr and in ranks the Netherland was highest and Denmarks was the
least.
• The Netherlands was the highest scorer and rank gainer among the five countries in terms
of logistics quality and competence while Finland is the lowest.
• Netherland is the best-performing country and Denmark is the least performer in terms of
tracking and tracing.
• In terms of timeliness, Singapore was again the most successful country and Finland was
the least successful.
5.0 Conclusion
After we analyzed the LPI index of these five countries Netherland, Singapore, Denmark, the
United Kingdom, and Finland, it can be said that over these 12 years the scores and rank of each
country have faced several ups and downs in terms of each component. Where some countries had
a better and consistent performance other countries faced major fluctuation which hampered their
score and position in the ranking. This analysis giving us a good comparison and the trend of the
scores and ranks of these five countries.
30
Reference
• Marti, L., Puertas, R., & García, L. (1970, January 1). [Pdf] the importance of the
logistics performance index in international trade: Semantic scholar. undefined.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-importance-of-the-Logistics-Performance-
Index-Marti-Puertas/30e44bb717708d6a09c56b3b5afeffcc412bbcc0
• The importance of the logistics performance index in international trade. Taylor &
Francis. (n.d.).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2014.916394?journalCode=raec
20
• Trade Logistics in Global Economy. worldbank.org. (n.d.).

https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Trade/LPI2014.pdf?fbcli
d=IwAR1p_MjT2vK0YYeIBwVA4p2Z4TE2yQ3FG2ICDAQ9Sng8X0J6ubbF1HHrY7
Q
• NATIONAL LOGISTICS PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING FOR TRADE

CONNECTIVITY – AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH USING WORLD BANK LOGISTICS
PERFORMANCE INDEX DATABASE. ResearchGate. (n.d.).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281714450_National_Logistics_Performance_
Benchmarking_for_Trade_Connectivity_-
_An_Innovative_Approach_Using_World_Bank_Logistics_Performance_Index_Databas
e
• BRITISH FOREIGN TRADE IN FIGURES. (n.d.). Retrieved from Santander Trade:

https://santandertrade.com/es/portal/analizar-mercados/reino-unido/cifras-comercio-
exterior
• Lauri OJALA, D. Ç. (2015). The World Bank’s Logistics Performance.
• United Kingdom - Country Commercial Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved from International Trade
Administration: https://www.trade.gov/knowledge-product/united-kingdom-market-
overview?fbclid=IwAR3l3SWjeD4pdVjCExQCNUL2-
2Dp4P9xNmR3iRYGrA2eDPXq33fHT3iXO5U
• United Kingdom. (2020). Retrieved from OEC:

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr?fbclid=IwAR2EU3YsnHe6OghnZdWW71OX5b
mv7ebAB00kd6PxY0lFwN8fC3R6qDN9j0k
• World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index. (2020, September 21). Retrieved from
StudyCorgi: https://studycorgi.com/world-banks-logistics-performance-index/
31

The Logistic Performance Index Over The Years 2007 To 2018 For Netherland, Singapore, Denmark, United Kingdom and Finland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Logistic Performance Index Over The Years 2007 To 2018 For Netherland, Singapore, Denmark, United Kingdom and Finland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Logistic

Performance Index Over

Md. Asif – Ur – Rashid Allis 2019-2-10-023 20%

Md. Shihab Uddin 2019-2-10-113 20%

Md. Oly Ullah 2019-2-10-098 20%

Azzaz Hossain Sihab 2019-2-10-015 20%

Bachelor of Business Administration

1.1 Origin of the report

1.2 Objective of the Study

1.3 Scope of the Study

1.4 Limitation of the Study

• Primary data collection: Faculty given data set in the classroom

2.0 Literature Review

LPI Analysis of Netherlands from 2007-2018

2007 4.18 2 3.99 1 4.29 1 4.05 1 4.25 1 4.14 4 4.38 5

2010 4.07 4 3.98 4 4.25 2 3.61 11 4.15 3 4.12 9 4.41 6

2012 4.02 5 3.85 8 4.15 3 3.86 3 4.05 7 4.12 2 4.15 12

2014 4.05 2 3.96 4 4.23 3 3.64 11 4.13 2 4.07 6 4.24 6

2016 4.19 4 4.12 3 4.29 2 4.94 6 4.22 3 4.17 6 4.41 5

2018 4.02 6 3.92 5 4.21 4 3.68 11 4.09 5 4.02 11 4.25 11

LPI for Netherland

LPI analysis of Singapore from 2007-2018

2018 4.00 7 3.89 6 4.06 6 3.58 15 4.10 3 4.08 8 4.32 6

2016 4.14 5 4.18 1 4.20 6 3.96 5 4.09 5 4.05 10 4.40 6

2014 4.00 5 4.01 3 4.28 2 3.70 6 3.97 8 3.90 11 4.25 9

2012 4.13 1 4.10 1 4.15 2 3.99 2 4.07 6 4.07 6 4.39 1

2007 4.19 1 3.90 3 4.27 2 4.04 2 4.21 2 4.25 1 4.53 1

LPI for Singapore

LPI Analysis of Denmark from 2007-2018

Table 1LPI for Denmark

2018 3.99 8 3.92 4 3.96 17 3.53 19 4.01 9 4.18 3 4.41 2

2016 3.82 17 3.82 14 3.75 24 3.66 15 4.01 9 3.74 25 3.92 30

2014 3.78 17 3.79 13 3.82 17 3.65 9 3.74 18 3.36 36 4.39 3

2012 4.02 6 3.93 4 4.07 10 3.70 8 4.14 2 4.10 4 4.21 7

2010 3.85 5 3.58 19 3.99 15 3.46 16 3.83 15 3.94 18 3.94 18

2007 3.86 13 3.97 2 3.82 14 3.67 15 3.83 15 3.76 17 4.11 19

2007 3.99 9 3.74 13 4.05 10 3.85 6 4.02 7 4.10 6 4.25 11

2010 3.95 8 3.74 11 3.95 16 3.66 8 3.92 9 4.13 7 4.37 8

2012 3.90 10 3.73 10 3.95 15 3.63 13 3.93 11 4.00 10 4.19 10

2014 4.01 4 3.94 5 4.16 6 3.63 12 4.03 5 4.08 5 4.33 7

2016 4.07 8 3.98 5 4.21 5 3.77 11 4.05 7 4.13 7 4.33 8

2018 3.99 9 3.77 11 4.03 8 3.67 13 4.05 7 4.11 4 4.33 5

2018 3.97 10 3.82 8 4.00 11 3.56 16 3.89 15 4.32 1 4.28 8

2016 3.92 15 4.01 4 4.01 16 3.51 30 3.88 16 4.04 11 4.14 16

2014 3.62 24 3.89 8 3.52 28 3.52 20 3.72 19 3.31 39 3.80 38

2012 4.05 3 3.98 2 4.12 6 3.85 4 4.14 1 4.14 1 4.10 15

2007 3.82 15 3.68 14 3.81 17 3.30 30 3.85 13 4.17 2 4.18 14

3.2 Comparison Among the Nations of their Performance on LPI

Comparison of Overall LPI Score and Ranking

Overall LPI score

Netherland Singapore Denmark United kingdom Finland

Overall LPI Rank

Netherland Singapore Denmark United kingdom Finland

Netherland Singapore Denmark United kingdom Finland

Netherland Singapore Denmark United kingdom Finland

Comparison of Infrastructure Score and Ranking

Netherland Singapore Denmark United kingdom Finland

Netherland Singapore Denmark United kingdom Finland

Comparison of International Shipment Score and Ranking

Netherland Singapore Denmark United kingdom Finland

Netherland Singapore Denmark United kingdom Finland

Comparison of Logistic Quality and Competence Score and Ranking