Azerbaijan vs Botswana: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Azerbaijan
45.28
in 2014
Botswana
40.66
in 2014
Azerbaijan rank
165th
Botswana rank
168th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Azerbaijan
- Botswana
How they compare
Azerbaijan currently reports 45.28 against 40.66 in Botswana, a difference of 4.62.
That makes Azerbaijan's figure about 1.1 times Botswana's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Botswana ahead.
Azerbaijan ranks 165th and Botswana ranks 168th of 184 countries.
Botswana has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Azerbaijan | Botswana | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 13.38 | 25.25 | 11.88 | Botswana |
| 2010s | 35.97 | 36.6 | 0.6288 | Botswana |
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), Azerbaijan or Botswana?
- Azerbaijan, at 45.28 against 40.66 in Botswana as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Azerbaijan and Botswana?
- 4.62, with Azerbaijan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Azerbaijan and Botswana?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Azerbaijan and Botswana rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Azerbaijan ranks 165th and Botswana ranks 168th of 184 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.