Eswatini, Kingdom of vs Jamaica: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Eswatini, Kingdom of
66.68
in 2014
Jamaica
67.83
in 2014
Eswatini, Kingdom of rank
142nd
Jamaica rank
141st
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Eswatini, Kingdom of
- Jamaica
How they compare
Jamaica currently reports 67.83 against 66.68 in Eswatini, Kingdom of, a difference of 1.15.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Eswatini, Kingdom of ahead.
Eswatini, Kingdom of ranks 142nd and Jamaica ranks 141st of 183 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Eswatini, Kingdom of averaged higher in 1 and Jamaica in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Eswatini, Kingdom of | Jamaica | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 47.98 | 41.42 | 6.56 | Eswatini, Kingdom of |
| 2010s | 63.03 | 63.52 | 0.4884 | Jamaica |
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), Eswatini, Kingdom of or Jamaica?
- Jamaica, at 67.83 against 66.68 in Eswatini, Kingdom of as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Eswatini, Kingdom of and Jamaica?
- 1.15, with Jamaica ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini, Kingdom of and Jamaica?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Eswatini, Kingdom of and Jamaica rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Eswatini, Kingdom of ranks 142nd and Jamaica ranks 141st 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.