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

Guyana
93.03
in 2014
Lithuania
92.59
in 2014
Guyana rank
28th
Lithuania rank
31st

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

  • Guyana
  • Lithuania
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Guyana currently reports 93.03 against 92.59 in Lithuania, a difference of 0.44.

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

Guyana ranks 28th and Lithuania ranks 31st of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Guyana averaged higher in 1 and Lithuania in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Guyana Lithuania Difference Ahead
2000s 82.15 85.49 3.34 Lithuania
2010s 91.26 90.15 1.11 Guyana

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, Guyana or Lithuania?
Guyana, at 93.03 against 92.59 in Lithuania as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Guyana and Lithuania?
0.44, with Guyana ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guyana and Lithuania?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Guyana and Lithuania rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Guyana ranks 28th and Lithuania ranks 31st 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.