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

Chad
0
in 2014
Zimbabwe
16.01
in 2014
Chad rank
175th
Zimbabwe rank
172nd

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

  • Chad
  • Zimbabwe
01020304050200520092014

How they compare

Zimbabwe currently reports 16.01 against 0 in Chad, a difference of 16.01.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Zimbabwe has been ahead every year.

Chad ranks 175th and Zimbabwe ranks 172nd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Chad Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
2000s 0 30.16 30.16 Zimbabwe
2010s 0 29.06 29.06 Zimbabwe

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, Chad or Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe, at 16.01 against 0 in Chad as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Chad and Zimbabwe?
16.01, with Zimbabwe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chad and Zimbabwe?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Chad and Zimbabwe rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Chad ranks 175th and Zimbabwe ranks 172nd 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.