Argentina vs Palestine, State of: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15)
Argentina
70.37
in 2014
Palestine, State of
70.81
in 2014
Argentina rank
142nd
Palestine, State of rank
141st
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15) over time
- Argentina
- Palestine, State of
How they compare
Palestine, State of currently reports 70.81 against 70.37 in Argentina, a difference of 0.44.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Palestine, State of has been ahead every year.
Argentina ranks 142nd and Palestine, State of ranks 141st of 184 countries.
Palestine, State of has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Argentina | Palestine, State of | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 19.39 | 79.8 | 60.41 | Palestine, State of |
| 2010s | 59.63 | 70.22 | 10.6 | Palestine, State of |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15), Argentina or Palestine, State of?
- Palestine, State of, at 70.81 against 70.37 in Argentina as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15) between Argentina and Palestine, State of?
- 0.44, with Palestine, State of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Argentina and Palestine, State of?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Argentina and Palestine, State of rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15)?
- Argentina ranks 142nd and Palestine, State of ranks 141st of 184 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for the cost 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 DB06-15 studies.