Jordan vs Mongolia: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16

Jordan
82.86
in 2019
Mongolia
82.52
in 2019
Jordan rank
52nd
Mongolia rank
53rd

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

  • Jordan
  • Mongolia
020406080201420162019

How they compare

Jordan currently reports 82.86 against 82.52 in Mongolia, a difference of 0.34.

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

Jordan ranks 52nd and Mongolia ranks 53rd of 188 countries.

Jordan 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, Jordan or Mongolia?
Jordan, at 82.86 against 82.52 in Mongolia as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 between Jordan and Mongolia?
0.34, with Jordan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Jordan and Mongolia?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Jordan and Mongolia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16?
Jordan ranks 52nd and Mongolia ranks 53rd 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.