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

Maldives
73.53
in 2014
Namibia
72.98
in 2014
Maldives rank
132nd
Namibia rank
135th

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

  • Maldives
  • Namibia
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Maldives currently reports 73.53 against 72.98 in Namibia, a difference of 0.55.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Namibia ahead.

Maldives ranks 132nd and Namibia ranks 135th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Maldives Namibia Difference Ahead
2000s 68.58 71.28 2.71 Namibia
2010s 71.69 77.51 5.82 Namibia

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, Maldives or Namibia?
Maldives, at 73.53 against 72.98 in Namibia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Maldives and Namibia?
0.55, with Maldives ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Maldives and Namibia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Maldives and Namibia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Maldives ranks 132nd and Namibia ranks 135th 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.