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

Italy
82.9
in 2014
Madagascar
82.9
in 2014
Italy rank
87th
Madagascar rank
87th

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

  • Italy
  • Madagascar
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Italy currently reports 82.9 against 82.9 in Madagascar, a difference of 0.

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

Italy ranks 87th and Madagascar ranks 87th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Italy Madagascar Difference Ahead
2000s 77.9 60.78 17.12 Italy
2010s 81.28 78.58 2.7 Italy

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, Italy or Madagascar?
Italy, at 82.9 against 82.9 in Madagascar as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Italy and Madagascar?
0, with Italy ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Italy and Madagascar?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Italy and Madagascar rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Italy ranks 87th and Madagascar ranks 87th 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.