Hong Kong, China vs Latvia: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15)
Hong Kong, China
96.08
in 2014
Latvia
95.86
in 2014
Hong Kong, China rank
9th
Latvia rank
12th
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15) over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Latvia
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 96.08 against 95.86 in Latvia, a difference of 0.22.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Hong Kong, China ahead.
Hong Kong, China ranks 9th and Latvia ranks 12th of 184 countries.
Hong Kong, China has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 96.13 | 89.72 | 6.4 | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 95.8 | 95.14 | 0.6553 | Hong Kong, China |
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), Hong Kong, China or Latvia?
- Hong Kong, China, at 96.08 against 95.86 in Latvia as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15) between Hong Kong, China and Latvia?
- 0.22, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Latvia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Latvia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15)?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 9th and Latvia ranks 12th of 184 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
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.