Cote d'Ivoire vs Guinea-Bissau: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Cote d'Ivoire
71.74
in 2014
Guinea-Bissau
70.92
in 2014
Cote d'Ivoire rank
135th
Guinea-Bissau rank
137th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Cote d'Ivoire
- Guinea-Bissau
How they compare
Cote d'Ivoire currently reports 71.74 against 70.92 in Guinea-Bissau, a difference of 0.82.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Guinea-Bissau ahead.
Cote d'Ivoire ranks 135th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 137th of 184 countries.
Guinea-Bissau has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cote d'Ivoire | Guinea-Bissau | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 55.74 | 66.01 | 10.28 | Guinea-Bissau |
| 2010s | 61.74 | 69.52 | 7.78 | Guinea-Bissau |
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), Cote d'Ivoire or Guinea-Bissau?
- Cote d'Ivoire, at 71.74 against 70.92 in Guinea-Bissau as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea-Bissau?
- 0.82, with Cote d'Ivoire ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea-Bissau?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea-Bissau rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Cote d'Ivoire ranks 135th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 137th 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.