Micronesia (country) vs Morocco: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16

Micronesia (country)
84.15
in 2019
Morocco
85.3
in 2019
Micronesia (country) rank
54th
Morocco rank
51st

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

  • Micronesia (country)
  • Morocco
020406080201420162019

How they compare

Morocco currently reports 85.3 against 84.15 in Micronesia (country), a difference of 1.15.

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

Micronesia (country) ranks 54th and Morocco ranks 51st of 188 countries.

Morocco 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, Micronesia (country) or Morocco?
Morocco, at 85.3 against 84.15 in Micronesia (country) as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 between Micronesia (country) and Morocco?
1.15, with Morocco ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Micronesia (country) and Morocco?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Micronesia (country) and Morocco rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16?
Micronesia (country) ranks 54th and Morocco ranks 51st 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.