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

Cyprus
90.09
in 2014
Ghana
89.87
in 2014
Cyprus rank
48th
Ghana rank
51st

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

  • Cyprus
  • Ghana
20406080100200520092014

How they compare

Cyprus currently reports 90.09 against 89.87 in Ghana, a difference of 0.22.

Across all 7 years both countries report, Cyprus has been ahead every year.

Cyprus ranks 48th and Ghana ranks 51st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Cyprus Ghana Difference Ahead
2000s 89.94 68.99 20.95 Cyprus
2010s 90.15 84.2 5.95 Cyprus

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, Cyprus or Ghana?
Cyprus, at 90.09 against 89.87 in Ghana as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Cyprus and Ghana?
0.22, with Cyprus ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cyprus and Ghana?
7 years are reported by both, from 2008 to 2014.
How do Cyprus and Ghana rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Cyprus ranks 48th 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.