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

Guyana
93.03
in 2014
Palau
93.25
in 2014
Guyana rank
28th
Palau rank
26th

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

  • Guyana
  • Palau
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Palau currently reports 93.25 against 93.03 in Guyana, a difference of 0.22.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Palau ahead.

Guyana ranks 28th and Palau ranks 26th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Guyana Palau Difference Ahead
2000s 82.15 84.67 2.52 Palau
2010s 91.26 92.41 1.15 Palau

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 Palau?
Palau, at 93.25 against 93.03 in Guyana as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Guyana and Palau?
0.22, with Palau ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guyana and Palau?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Guyana and Palau rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Guyana ranks 28th and Palau ranks 26th 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.