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

Fiji
93.17
in 2014
Sweden
93.49
in 2014
Fiji rank
26th
Sweden rank
23rd

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

  • Fiji
  • Sweden
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Sweden currently reports 93.49 against 93.17 in Fiji, a difference of 0.32.

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

Fiji ranks 26th and Sweden ranks 23rd of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Fiji averaged higher in 1 and Sweden in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Fiji Sweden Difference Ahead
2000s 92.86 93.36 0.5054 Sweden
2010s 93.59 93.23 0.3599 Fiji

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, Fiji or Sweden?
Sweden, at 93.49 against 93.17 in Fiji as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Fiji and Sweden?
0.32, with Sweden ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Fiji and Sweden?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Fiji and Sweden rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Fiji ranks 26th and Sweden ranks 23rd 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.