Cape Verde vs Philippines: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met
Cape Verde
90.12
in 2014
Philippines
90.29
in 2014
Cape Verde rank
43rd
Philippines rank
42nd
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met over time
- Cape Verde
- Philippines
How they compare
Philippines currently reports 90.29 against 90.12 in Cape Verde, a difference of 0.17.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Philippines ahead.
Cape Verde ranks 43rd and Philippines ranks 42nd of 181 countries.
Philippines has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cape Verde | Philippines | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 87.22 | 88.03 | 0.8007 | Philippines |
| 2010s | 88.73 | 92.74 | 4.01 | Philippines |
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, Cape Verde or Philippines?
- Philippines, at 90.29 against 90.12 in Cape Verde as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Cape Verde and Philippines?
- 0.17, with Philippines ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cape Verde and Philippines?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Cape Verde and Philippines rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
- Cape Verde ranks 43rd and Philippines ranks 42nd 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
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.