Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of vs Korea: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD)
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of
- Korea
How they compare
Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of currently reports 83.82 against 82.57 in Korea, a difference of 1.25.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of has been ahead every year.
Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of ranks 56th and Korea ranks 59th of 190 countries.
Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of 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), Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of or Korea?
- Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of, at 83.82 against 82.57 in Korea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) between Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of and Korea?
- 1.25, with Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of and Korea?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of and Korea rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd)?
- Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of ranks 56th and Korea ranks 59th of 190 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.