Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Croatia: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
85.23
in 2014
Croatia
85.5
in 2014
Bosnia and Herzegovina rank
70th
Croatia rank
67th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Croatia
How they compare
Croatia currently reports 85.5 against 85.23 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a difference of 0.27.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Croatia ahead.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 70th and Croatia ranks 67th of 184 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Bosnia and Herzegovina averaged higher in 1 and Croatia in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Croatia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 83.1 | 81.66 | 1.44 | Bosnia and Herzegovina |
| 2010s | 84.51 | 85.11 | 0.6053 | Croatia |
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), Bosnia and Herzegovina or Croatia?
- Croatia, at 85.5 against 85.23 in Bosnia and Herzegovina as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia?
- 0.27, with Croatia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 70th and Croatia ranks 67th 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.