Australia vs Haiti: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 me

Australia
82.79
in 2014
Haiti
82.79
in 2014
Australia rank
89th
Haiti rank
89th

Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 me over time

  • Australia
  • Haiti
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Australia currently reports 82.79 against 82.79 in Haiti, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Australia ahead.

Australia ranks 89th and Haiti ranks 89th of 181 countries.

Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Haiti Difference Ahead
2000s 82.09 60.49 21.61 Australia
2010s 84.27 80.37 3.9 Australia

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 me, Australia or Haiti?
Australia, at 82.79 against 82.79 in Haiti as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Australia and Haiti?
0, with Australia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Haiti?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Australia and Haiti rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Australia ranks 89th and Haiti ranks 89th of 181 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

Indicator
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 1,813 data points, 2005–2014
Last refreshed

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.