Namibia vs South Sudan: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16

Namibia
29.72
in 2019
South Sudan
28.07
in 2019
Namibia rank
161st
South Sudan rank
164th

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

  • Namibia
  • South Sudan
0102030201420162019

How they compare

Namibia currently reports 29.72 against 28.07 in South Sudan, a difference of 1.65.

That makes Namibia's figure about 1.1 times South Sudan's.

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

Namibia ranks 161st and South Sudan ranks 164th of 188 countries.

Namibia 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, Namibia or South Sudan?
Namibia, at 29.72 against 28.07 in South Sudan as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 between Namibia and South Sudan?
1.65, with Namibia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Namibia and South Sudan?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Namibia and South Sudan rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16?
Namibia ranks 161st and South Sudan ranks 164th 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.