Belgium vs North Macedonia: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Belgium
81.68
in 2014
North Macedonia
82.04
in 2014
Belgium rank
90th
North Macedonia rank
89th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Belgium
- North Macedonia
How they compare
North Macedonia currently reports 82.04 against 81.68 in Belgium, a difference of 0.36.
Across all 10 years both countries report, North Macedonia has been ahead every year.
Belgium ranks 90th and North Macedonia ranks 89th of 183 countries.
North Macedonia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Belgium | North Macedonia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 78.16 | 80.34 | 2.18 | North Macedonia |
| 2010s | 80.75 | 81.55 | 0.7996 | North Macedonia |
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), Belgium or North Macedonia?
- North Macedonia, at 82.04 against 81.68 in Belgium as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Belgium and North Macedonia?
- 0.36, with North Macedonia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belgium and North Macedonia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Belgium and North Macedonia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Belgium ranks 90th and North Macedonia ranks 89th 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.