Central African Republic vs Rwanda: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Central African Republic
0
in 2014
Rwanda
17.93
in 2014
Central African Republic rank
176th
Rwanda rank
173rd
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Central African Republic
- Rwanda
How they compare
Rwanda currently reports 17.93 against 0 in Central African Republic, a difference of 17.93.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Central African Republic ahead.
Central African Republic ranks 176th and Rwanda ranks 173rd of 183 countries.
Rwanda has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Central African Republic | Rwanda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 11.03 | 17.02 | 5.98 | Rwanda |
| 2010s | 0 | 34.71 | 34.71 | Rwanda |
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), Central African Republic or Rwanda?
- Rwanda, at 17.93 against 0 in Central African Republic as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Central African Republic and Rwanda?
- 17.93, with Rwanda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Central African Republic and Rwanda?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Central African Republic and Rwanda rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Central African Republic ranks 176th and Rwanda ranks 173rd 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.