Lebanon vs Yemen, Republic of: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15)
Lebanon
85.4
in 2014
Yemen, Republic of
85.73
in 2014
Lebanon rank
77th
Yemen, Republic of rank
76th
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15) over time
- Lebanon
- Yemen, Republic of
How they compare
Yemen, Republic of currently reports 85.73 against 85.4 in Lebanon, a difference of 0.33.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Lebanon ahead.
Lebanon ranks 77th and Yemen, Republic of ranks 76th of 183 countries.
Lebanon has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Lebanon | Yemen, Republic of | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 82.49 | 71.6 | 10.89 | Lebanon |
| 2010s | 85.48 | 84.48 | 1 | Lebanon |
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), Lebanon or Yemen, Republic of?
- Yemen, Republic of, at 85.73 against 85.4 in Lebanon as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15) between Lebanon and Yemen, Republic of?
- 0.33, with Yemen, Republic of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Lebanon and Yemen, Republic of?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Lebanon and Yemen, Republic of rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15)?
- Lebanon ranks 77th and Yemen, Republic of ranks 76th 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.