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

Chile
91.27
in 2014
Kiribati
90.38
in 2014
Chile rank
38th
Kiribati rank
40th

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

  • Chile
  • Kiribati
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Chile currently reports 91.27 against 90.38 in Kiribati, a difference of 0.89.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Chile ahead.

Chile ranks 38th and Kiribati ranks 40th of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Chile averaged higher in 1 and Kiribati in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Chile Kiribati Difference Ahead
2000s 91.43 83.33 8.1 Chile
2010s 90.95 91.22 0.2763 Kiribati

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, Chile or Kiribati?
Chile, at 91.27 against 90.38 in Kiribati as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Chile and Kiribati?
0.89, with Chile ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Kiribati?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Chile and Kiribati rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Chile ranks 38th and Kiribati ranks 40th 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.