Lao People's Democratic Republic vs Malaysia: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD)
Lao People's Democratic Republic
81.38
in 2019
Malaysia
82.29
in 2019
Lao People's Democratic Republic rank
58th
Malaysia rank
55th
Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Lao People's Democratic Republic
- Malaysia
How they compare
Malaysia currently reports 82.29 against 81.38 in Lao People's Democratic Republic, a difference of 0.91.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 6 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Lao People's Democratic Republic ahead.
Lao People's Democratic Republic ranks 58th and Malaysia ranks 55th of 190 countries.
Lao People's Democratic Republic 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), Lao People's Democratic Republic or Malaysia?
- Malaysia, at 82.29 against 81.38 in Lao People's Democratic Republic as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) between Lao People's Democratic Republic and Malaysia?
- 0.91, with Malaysia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Lao People's Democratic Republic and Malaysia?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Lao People's Democratic Republic and Malaysia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd)?
- Lao People's Democratic Republic ranks 58th and Malaysia ranks 55th of 190 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
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.