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

Ghana
89.87
in 2014
Kiribati
89.98
in 2014
Ghana rank
51st
Kiribati rank
49th

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

  • Ghana
  • Kiribati
20406080100200520092014

How they compare

Kiribati currently reports 89.98 against 89.87 in Ghana, a difference of 0.11.

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

Ghana ranks 51st and Kiribati ranks 49th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Ghana Kiribati Difference Ahead
2000s 53.85 80.46 26.61 Kiribati
2010s 84.2 90.31 6.11 Kiribati

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, Ghana or Kiribati?
Kiribati, at 89.98 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 Ghana and Kiribati?
0.11, with Kiribati ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ghana and Kiribati?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Ghana and Kiribati rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Ghana ranks 51st and Kiribati ranks 49th 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.