Lebanon vs Suriname: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD)
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Lebanon
- Suriname
How they compare
Lebanon currently reports 480 DB16-20 methodology against 467.5 DB16-20 methodology in Suriname, a difference of 12.5 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Lebanon has been ahead every year.
Lebanon ranks 57th and Suriname ranks 60th of 188 countries.
Lebanon 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), Lebanon or Suriname?
- Lebanon, at 480 DB16-20 methodology against 467.5 DB16-20 methodology in Suriname as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) between Lebanon and Suriname?
- 12.5 DB16-20 methodology, with Lebanon ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Lebanon and Suriname?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Lebanon and Suriname rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd)?
- Lebanon ranks 57th and Suriname ranks 60th 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.