Cameroon vs Maldives: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) (

Cameroon
23.62
in 2019
Maldives
25
in 2019
Cameroon rank
172nd
Maldives rank
171st

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

  • Cameroon
  • Maldives
0510152025201420162019

How they compare

Maldives currently reports 25 against 23.62 in Cameroon, a difference of 1.38.

That makes Maldives's figure about 1.1 times Cameroon's.

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

Cameroon ranks 172nd and Maldives ranks 171st of 188 countries.

Maldives has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) (, Cameroon or Maldives?
Maldives, at 25 against 23.62 in Cameroon as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) ( between Cameroon and Maldives?
1.38, with Maldives ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cameroon and Maldives?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Cameroon and Maldives rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) (?
Cameroon ranks 172nd and Maldives ranks 171st of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary 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: Documentary 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 documentary 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.