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

Indonesia
96.47
in 2014
Malaysia
97.49
in 2014
Indonesia rank
7th
Malaysia rank
5th

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

  • Indonesia
  • Malaysia
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Malaysia currently reports 97.49 against 96.47 in Indonesia, a difference of 1.02.

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

Indonesia ranks 7th and Malaysia ranks 5th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Indonesia Malaysia Difference Ahead
2000s 86.3 97.46 11.16 Malaysia
2010s 93.81 98.53 4.72 Malaysia

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, Indonesia or Malaysia?
Malaysia, at 97.49 against 96.47 in Indonesia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Indonesia and Malaysia?
1.02, with Malaysia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Indonesia and Malaysia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Indonesia and Malaysia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Indonesia ranks 7th and Malaysia ranks 5th 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.