Hong Kong vs Israel: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Hong Kong
96.51
in 2014
Israel
96.51
in 2014
Hong Kong rank
5th
Israel rank
5th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Hong Kong
- Israel
How they compare
Hong Kong currently reports 96.51 against 96.51 in Israel, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Hong Kong ahead.
Hong Kong ranks 5th and Israel ranks 5th of 184 countries.
Hong Kong has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong | Israel | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 96.23 | 93.98 | 2.25 | Hong Kong |
| 2010s | 96.18 | 95.92 | 0.259 | Hong Kong |
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), Hong Kong or Israel?
- Hong Kong, at 96.51 against 96.51 in Israel as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Hong Kong and Israel?
- 0, with Hong Kong ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong and Israel?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Hong Kong and Israel rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Hong Kong ranks 5th and Israel ranks 5th 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.