Chad vs Equatorial Guinea: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16

Chad
19.58
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
17.92
in 2019
Chad rank
170th
Equatorial Guinea rank
172nd

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 over time

  • Chad
  • Equatorial Guinea
05101520201420162019

How they compare

Chad currently reports 19.58 against 17.92 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 1.66.

That makes Chad's figure about 1.1 times Equatorial Guinea's.

Across all 6 years both countries report, Chad has been ahead every year.

Chad ranks 170th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 172nd of 188 countries.

Chad has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16, Chad or Equatorial Guinea?
Chad, at 19.58 against 17.92 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 between Chad and Equatorial Guinea?
1.66, with Chad ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chad and Equatorial Guinea?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Chad and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16?
Chad ranks 170th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 172nd of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 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 import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The score for the cost for border compliance to import 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 DB16-20 studies.