Bolivia vs Equatorial Guinea: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 me
Bolivia
77.56
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea
78.65
in 2014
Bolivia rank
119th
Equatorial Guinea rank
116th
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 me over time
- Bolivia
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 78.65 against 77.56 in Bolivia, a difference of 1.09.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Bolivia ahead.
Bolivia ranks 119th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 116th of 181 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Bolivia averaged higher in 1 and Equatorial Guinea in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bolivia | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 57.04 | 57.02 | 0.0272 | Bolivia |
| 2010s | 72.14 | 72.16 | 0.0222 | Equatorial Guinea |
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, Bolivia or Equatorial Guinea?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 78.65 against 77.56 in Bolivia as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Bolivia and Equatorial Guinea?
- 1.09, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia and Equatorial Guinea?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Bolivia and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
- Bolivia ranks 119th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 116th 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
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.