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

Cyprus
90.09
in 2014
Japan
90.87
in 2014
Cyprus rank
48th
Japan rank
45th

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

  • Cyprus
  • Japan
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Japan currently reports 90.87 against 90.09 in Cyprus, a difference of 0.78.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 7 shared years of data; in 2008 it was Japan ahead.

Cyprus ranks 48th and Japan ranks 45th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Cyprus Japan Difference Ahead
2000s 89.94 90.92 0.9789 Japan
2010s 90.15 90.29 0.1433 Japan

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 Japan?
Japan, at 90.87 against 90.09 in Cyprus as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Cyprus and Japan?
0.78, with Japan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cyprus and Japan?
7 years are reported by both, from 2008 to 2014.
How do Cyprus and Japan rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Cyprus ranks 48th and Japan ranks 45th 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.