Madagascar, Republic of vs Palau, Republic of: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD)
Madagascar, Republic of
50.42
in 2019
Palau, Republic of
49.58
in 2019
Madagascar, Republic of rank
136th
Palau, Republic of rank
139th
Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Madagascar, Republic of
- Palau, Republic of
How they compare
Madagascar, Republic of currently reports 50.42 against 49.58 in Palau, Republic of, a difference of 0.84.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Madagascar, Republic of has been ahead every year.
Madagascar, Republic of ranks 136th and Palau, Republic of ranks 139th of 190 countries.
Madagascar, Republic of 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), Madagascar, Republic of or Palau, Republic of?
- Madagascar, Republic of, at 50.42 against 49.58 in Palau, Republic of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) between Madagascar, Republic of and Palau, Republic of?
- 0.84, with Madagascar, Republic of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Madagascar, Republic of and Palau, Republic of?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Madagascar, Republic of and Palau, Republic of rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd)?
- Madagascar, Republic of ranks 136th and Palau, Republic of ranks 139th 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.