Bahamas vs Republic of Moldova: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Bahamas
75.11
in 2014
Republic of Moldova
73.34
in 2014
Bahamas rank
126th
Republic of Moldova rank
128th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Bahamas
- Republic of Moldova
How they compare
Bahamas currently reports 75.11 against 73.34 in Republic of Moldova, a difference of 1.77.
Across all 8 years both countries report, Bahamas has been ahead every year.
Bahamas ranks 126th and Republic of Moldova ranks 128th of 183 countries.
Bahamas has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bahamas | Republic of Moldova | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 80.08 | 53.4 | 26.68 | Bahamas |
| 2010s | 77.9 | 67.67 | 10.23 | Bahamas |
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), Bahamas or Republic of Moldova?
- Bahamas, at 75.11 against 73.34 in Republic of Moldova as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Bahamas and Republic of Moldova?
- 1.77, with Bahamas ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bahamas and Republic of Moldova?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2007 to 2014.
- How do Bahamas and Republic of Moldova rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Bahamas ranks 126th and Republic of Moldova ranks 128th 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.