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

Ethiopia
53.98
in 2014
Mongolia
54.16
in 2014
Ethiopia rank
159th
Mongolia rank
158th

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

  • Ethiopia
  • Mongolia
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Mongolia currently reports 54.16 against 53.98 in Ethiopia, a difference of 0.18.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Mongolia ahead.

Ethiopia ranks 159th and Mongolia ranks 158th of 181 countries.

Mongolia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Ethiopia Mongolia Difference Ahead
2000s 0.0127 14.13 14.11 Mongolia
2010s 38.82 46.41 7.59 Mongolia

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, Ethiopia or Mongolia?
Mongolia, at 54.16 against 53.98 in Ethiopia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Ethiopia and Mongolia?
0.18, with Mongolia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ethiopia and Mongolia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Ethiopia and Mongolia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Ethiopia ranks 159th and Mongolia ranks 158th 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.