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

Malaysia
97.49
in 2014
Tonga
97.71
in 2014
Malaysia rank
5th
Tonga rank
4th

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

  • Malaysia
  • Tonga
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Tonga currently reports 97.71 against 97.49 in Malaysia, a difference of 0.22.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Malaysia ahead.

Malaysia ranks 5th and Tonga ranks 4th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Malaysia Tonga Difference Ahead
2000s 97.46 94.06 3.4 Malaysia
2010s 98.53 97.75 0.777 Malaysia

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, Malaysia or Tonga?
Tonga, at 97.71 against 97.49 in Malaysia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Malaysia and Tonga?
0.22, with Tonga ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Malaysia and Tonga?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Malaysia and Tonga rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Malaysia ranks 5th and Tonga ranks 4th 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.