Sao Tome and Principe vs Timor-Leste: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD)
Sao Tome and Principe
66.17
in 2019
Timor-Leste
65.83
in 2019
Sao Tome and Principe rank
105th
Timor-Leste rank
107th
Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Timor-Leste
How they compare
Sao Tome and Principe currently reports 66.17 against 65.83 in Timor-Leste, a difference of 0.34.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Sao Tome and Principe has been ahead every year.
Sao Tome and Principe ranks 105th and Timor-Leste ranks 107th of 191 countries.
Sao Tome and Principe 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), Sao Tome and Principe or Timor-Leste?
- Sao Tome and Principe, at 66.17 against 65.83 in Timor-Leste as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) between Sao Tome and Principe and Timor-Leste?
- 0.34, with Sao Tome and Principe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Sao Tome and Principe and Timor-Leste?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Sao Tome and Principe and Timor-Leste rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd)?
- Sao Tome and Principe ranks 105th and Timor-Leste ranks 107th of 191 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.