Antigua and Barbuda vs Romania: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Antigua and Barbuda
79.55
in 2014
Romania
80
in 2014
Antigua and Barbuda rank
106th
Romania rank
103rd
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Romania
How they compare
Romania currently reports 80 against 79.55 in Antigua and Barbuda, a difference of 0.45.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Romania ahead.
Antigua and Barbuda ranks 106th and Romania ranks 103rd of 183 countries.
Romania has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Antigua and Barbuda | Romania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 68.75 | 73.78 | 5.02 | Romania |
| 2010s | 78.48 | 78.91 | 0.4332 | Romania |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15), Antigua and Barbuda or Romania?
- Romania, at 80 against 79.55 in Antigua and Barbuda as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Antigua and Barbuda and Romania?
- 0.45, with Romania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Antigua and Barbuda and Romania?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Antigua and Barbuda and Romania rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Antigua and Barbuda ranks 106th and Romania ranks 103rd of 183 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 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 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 DB06-15 studies.