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

Bolivia
75.56
in 2014
Moldova
73.34
in 2014
Bolivia rank
123rd
Moldova rank
126th

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

  • Bolivia
  • Moldova
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Bolivia currently reports 75.56 against 73.34 in Moldova, a difference of 2.22.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Bolivia ahead.

Bolivia ranks 123rd and Moldova ranks 126th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Bolivia Moldova Difference Ahead
2000s 60.41 49.3 11.11 Bolivia
2010s 69.92 67.67 2.26 Bolivia

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, Bolivia or Moldova?
Bolivia, at 75.56 against 73.34 in Moldova as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Bolivia and Moldova?
2.22, with Bolivia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia and Moldova?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Bolivia and Moldova rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Bolivia ranks 123rd and Moldova ranks 126th 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.