Guyana vs Marshall Islands: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Guyana
93.76
in 2014
Marshall Islands
93.76
in 2014
Guyana rank
19th
Marshall Islands rank
19th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Guyana
- Marshall Islands
How they compare
Guyana currently reports 93.76 against 93.76 in Marshall Islands, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Marshall Islands ahead.
Guyana ranks 19th and Marshall Islands ranks 19th of 183 countries.
Marshall Islands has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guyana | Marshall Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 85.65 | 89.49 | 3.84 | Marshall Islands |
| 2010s | 92.33 | 93.77 | 1.44 | Marshall Islands |
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), Guyana or Marshall Islands?
- Guyana, at 93.76 against 93.76 in Marshall Islands as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Guyana and Marshall Islands?
- 0, with Guyana ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guyana and Marshall Islands?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Guyana and Marshall Islands rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Guyana ranks 19th and Marshall Islands ranks 19th 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.