Kiribati vs Solomon Islands: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15)
Kiribati
89.98
in 2014
Solomon Islands
90.63
in 2014
Kiribati rank
49th
Solomon Islands rank
46th
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15) over time
- Kiribati
- Solomon Islands
How they compare
Solomon Islands currently reports 90.63 against 89.98 in Kiribati, a difference of 0.65.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Kiribati ahead.
Kiribati ranks 49th and Solomon Islands ranks 46th of 183 countries.
Kiribati has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kiribati | Solomon Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 80.46 | 77.55 | 2.9 | Kiribati |
| 2010s | 90.31 | 87.71 | 2.6 | Kiribati |
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), Kiribati or Solomon Islands?
- Solomon Islands, at 90.63 against 89.98 in Kiribati as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15) between Kiribati and Solomon Islands?
- 0.65, with Solomon Islands ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kiribati and Solomon Islands?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Kiribati and Solomon Islands rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15)?
- Kiribati ranks 49th and Solomon Islands ranks 46th of 183 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.