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

Chile
89.11
in 2014
Ghana
89.87
in 2014
Chile rank
54th
Ghana rank
51st

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

  • Chile
  • Ghana
20406080100200520092014

How they compare

Ghana currently reports 89.87 against 89.11 in Chile, a difference of 0.76.

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

Chile ranks 54th and Ghana ranks 51st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Chile Ghana Difference Ahead
2000s 89.2 53.85 35.35 Chile
2010s 88.8 84.2 4.59 Chile

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, Chile or Ghana?
Ghana, at 89.87 against 89.11 in Chile as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Chile and Ghana?
0.76, with Ghana ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Ghana?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Chile and Ghana rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Chile ranks 54th and Ghana ranks 51st 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.