Ecuador vs Libya: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16

Ecuador
47.17
in 2019
Libya
45.77
in 2019
Ecuador rank
142nd
Libya rank
143rd

Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 over time

  • Ecuador
  • Libya
01020304050201420162019

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 47.17 against 45.77 in Libya, a difference of 1.4.

Across all 6 years both countries report, Ecuador has been ahead every year.

Ecuador ranks 142nd and Libya ranks 143rd of 188 countries.

Ecuador 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) (db16, Ecuador or Libya?
Ecuador, at 47.17 against 45.77 in Libya as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 between Ecuador and Libya?
1.4, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Libya?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Ecuador and Libya rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16?
Ecuador ranks 142nd and Libya ranks 143rd of 188 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

Indicator
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

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.