Burkina Faso vs Ethiopia: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15)
Burkina Faso
58.71
in 2014
Ethiopia
57.08
in 2014
Burkina Faso rank
157th
Ethiopia rank
160th
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15) over time
- Burkina Faso
- Ethiopia
How they compare
Burkina Faso currently reports 58.71 against 57.08 in Ethiopia, a difference of 1.63.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Burkina Faso ahead.
Burkina Faso ranks 157th and Ethiopia ranks 160th of 184 countries.
Burkina Faso has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Burkina Faso | Ethiopia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 48.52 | 0 | 48.52 | Burkina Faso |
| 2010s | 55.09 | 41.41 | 13.68 | Burkina Faso |
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), Burkina Faso or Ethiopia?
- Burkina Faso, at 58.71 against 57.08 in Ethiopia as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15) between Burkina Faso and Ethiopia?
- 1.63, with Burkina Faso ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Burkina Faso and Ethiopia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Burkina Faso and Ethiopia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15)?
- Burkina Faso ranks 157th and Ethiopia ranks 160th 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.