Azerbaijan vs Malaysia: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD)
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Azerbaijan
- Malaysia
How they compare
Azerbaijan currently reports 214.14 DB16-20 methodology against 212.5 DB16-20 methodology in Malaysia, a difference of 1.64 DB16-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 6 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Malaysia ahead.
Azerbaijan ranks 123rd and Malaysia ranks 124th of 188 countries.
Malaysia 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), Azerbaijan or Malaysia?
- Azerbaijan, at 214.14 DB16-20 methodology against 212.5 DB16-20 methodology in Malaysia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) between Azerbaijan and Malaysia?
- 1.64 DB16-20 methodology, with Azerbaijan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Azerbaijan and Malaysia?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Azerbaijan and Malaysia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd)?
- Azerbaijan ranks 123rd and Malaysia ranks 124th 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). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The cost for border compliance to export records the cost associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the export shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. It is calculated in US dollars. The cost for this segment include the cost for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other agencies. For example, the cost for conducting a phytosanitary inspection would be included here. Informal payments for which no receipt is issued are excluded from the costs recorded. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.