Chile vs Rwanda: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD)
Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Chile
- Rwanda
How they compare
Chile currently reports 290 DB16-20 methodology against 282.14 DB16-20 methodology in Rwanda, a difference of 7.86 DB16-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 6 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Chile ahead.
Chile ranks 115th and Rwanda ranks 117th of 189 countries.
Rwanda 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), Chile or Rwanda?
- Chile, at 290 DB16-20 methodology against 282.14 DB16-20 methodology in Rwanda as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) between Chile and Rwanda?
- 7.86 DB16-20 methodology, with Chile ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Rwanda?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Chile and Rwanda rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd)?
- Chile ranks 115th and Rwanda ranks 117th of 189 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The cost for border compliance to import records the cost associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the import shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. It is calculated in US dollars. The cost for this segment include the cost for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other agencies. For example, the cost for conducting a technical standard inspection would be included here. Informal payments for which no receipt is issued are excluded from the costs recorded. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.