Botswana vs Burkina Faso: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Botswana
40.66
in 2014
Burkina Faso
29.65
in 2014
Botswana rank
167th
Burkina Faso rank
169th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Botswana
- Burkina Faso
How they compare
Botswana currently reports 40.66 against 29.65 in Burkina Faso, a difference of 11.01.
That makes Botswana's figure about 1.4 times Burkina Faso's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Burkina Faso ahead.
Botswana ranks 167th and Burkina Faso ranks 169th of 183 countries.
Botswana has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Botswana | Burkina Faso | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 25.25 | 21.61 | 3.64 | Botswana |
| 2010s | 36.6 | 28.86 | 7.74 | Botswana |
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), Botswana or Burkina Faso?
- Botswana, at 40.66 against 29.65 in Burkina Faso as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Botswana and Burkina Faso?
- 11.01, with Botswana ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and Burkina Faso?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Botswana and Burkina Faso rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Botswana ranks 167th and Burkina Faso ranks 169th 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.