South Korea vs Marshall Islands: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 me
South Korea
94.34
in 2014
Marshall Islands
93.79
in 2014
South Korea rank
20th
Marshall Islands rank
23rd
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 me over time
- South Korea
- Marshall Islands
How they compare
South Korea currently reports 94.34 against 93.79 in Marshall Islands, a difference of 0.55.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was South Korea ahead.
South Korea ranks 20th and Marshall Islands ranks 23rd of 181 countries.
South Korea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | South Korea | Marshall Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 91.95 | 88.61 | 3.34 | South Korea |
| 2010s | 94.77 | 93.81 | 0.9556 | South Korea |
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, South Korea or Marshall Islands?
- South Korea, at 94.34 against 93.79 in Marshall Islands as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between South Korea and Marshall Islands?
- 0.55, with South Korea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for South Korea and Marshall Islands?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do South Korea and Marshall Islands rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
- South Korea ranks 20th and Marshall Islands ranks 23rd 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
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.