El Salvador vs United Kingdom: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
El Salvador
88.16
in 2014
United Kingdom
87.9
in 2014
El Salvador rank
56th
United Kingdom rank
58th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- El Salvador
- United Kingdom
How they compare
El Salvador currently reports 88.16 against 87.9 in United Kingdom, a difference of 0.26.
Across all 10 years both countries report, El Salvador has been ahead every year.
El Salvador ranks 56th and United Kingdom ranks 58th of 184 countries.
El Salvador has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | El Salvador | United Kingdom | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 91.89 | 80.24 | 11.64 | El Salvador |
| 2010s | 88.74 | 87.27 | 1.46 | El Salvador |
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), El Salvador or United Kingdom?
- El Salvador, at 88.16 against 87.9 in United Kingdom as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between El Salvador and United Kingdom?
- 0.26, with El Salvador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for El Salvador and United Kingdom?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do El Salvador and United Kingdom rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- El Salvador ranks 56th and United Kingdom ranks 58th 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.