Guinea-Bissau vs South Africa: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Guinea-Bissau
70.92
in 2014
South Africa
69.61
in 2014
Guinea-Bissau rank
137th
South Africa rank
139th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Guinea-Bissau
- South Africa
How they compare
Guinea-Bissau currently reports 70.92 against 69.61 in South Africa, a difference of 1.31.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was South Africa ahead.
Guinea-Bissau ranks 137th and South Africa ranks 139th of 184 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Guinea-Bissau averaged higher in 1 and South Africa in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guinea-Bissau | South Africa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 66.01 | 67.19 | 1.18 | South Africa |
| 2010s | 69.52 | 68.52 | 0.9989 | 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), Guinea-Bissau or South Africa?
- Guinea-Bissau, at 70.92 against 69.61 in South Africa as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Guinea-Bissau and South Africa?
- 1.31, with Guinea-Bissau ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea-Bissau and South Africa?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Guinea-Bissau and South Africa rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Guinea-Bissau ranks 137th and South Africa ranks 139th 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.