Bahrain vs Chile: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met

Bahrain
91.09
in 2014
Chile
91.27
in 2014
Bahrain rank
39th
Chile rank
38th

Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met over time

  • Bahrain
  • Chile
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Chile currently reports 91.27 against 91.09 in Bahrain, a difference of 0.18.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 8 shared years of data; in 2007 it was Chile ahead.

Bahrain ranks 39th and Chile ranks 38th of 181 countries.

Chile has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Bahrain Chile Difference Ahead
2000s 86.77 91.9 5.13 Chile
2010s 88.27 90.95 2.68 Chile

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 met, Bahrain or Chile?
Chile, at 91.27 against 91.09 in Bahrain as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Bahrain and Chile?
0.18, with Chile ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Bahrain and Chile?
8 years are reported by both, from 2007 to 2014.
How do Bahrain and Chile rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Bahrain ranks 39th and Chile ranks 38th of 181 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

Indicator
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 1,813 data points, 2005–2014
Last refreshed

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.