Kiribati vs Trinidad and Tobago: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15)
Kiribati
89.98
in 2014
Trinidad and Tobago
90.57
in 2014
Kiribati rank
49th
Trinidad and Tobago rank
47th
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15) over time
- Kiribati
- Trinidad and Tobago
How they compare
Trinidad and Tobago currently reports 90.57 against 89.98 in Kiribati, a difference of 0.59.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Trinidad and Tobago ahead.
Kiribati ranks 49th and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 47th of 184 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Kiribati averaged higher in 1 and Trinidad and Tobago in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kiribati | Trinidad and Tobago | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 80.46 | 88.68 | 8.22 | Trinidad and Tobago |
| 2010s | 90.31 | 88.9 | 1.42 | 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 Trinidad and Tobago?
- Trinidad and Tobago, at 90.57 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 Trinidad and Tobago?
- 0.59, with Trinidad and Tobago ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kiribati and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Kiribati and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15)?
- Kiribati ranks 49th and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 47th 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.