Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Republic of Moldova: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
93.4
in 2019
Republic of Moldova
92.82
in 2019
Bosnia and Herzegovina rank
31st
Republic of Moldova rank
33rd
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Republic of Moldova
How they compare
Bosnia and Herzegovina currently reports 93.4 against 92.82 in Republic of Moldova, a difference of 0.58.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Bosnia and Herzegovina has been ahead every year.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 31st and Republic of Moldova ranks 33rd of 191 countries.
Bosnia and Herzegovina has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd), Bosnia and Herzegovina or Republic of Moldova?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, at 93.4 against 92.82 in Republic of Moldova as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Moldova?
- 0.58, with Bosnia and Herzegovina ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Moldova?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Moldova rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd)?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 31st and Republic of Moldova ranks 33rd of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for the cost for border compliance to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.