Ecuador vs Libya: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD)
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Ecuador
- Libya
How they compare
Libya currently reports 574.86 DB16-20 methodology against 560 DB16-20 methodology in Ecuador, a difference of 14.86 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Libya has been ahead every year.
Ecuador ranks 45th and Libya ranks 44th of 186 countries.
Libya 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), Ecuador or Libya?
- Libya, at 574.86 DB16-20 methodology against 560 DB16-20 methodology in Ecuador as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) between Ecuador and Libya?
- 14.86 DB16-20 methodology, with Libya 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)?
- Ecuador ranks 45th and Libya ranks 44th of 186 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.