Kazakhstan vs Rwanda: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met
Kazakhstan
13.05
in 2014
Rwanda
17.93
in 2014
Kazakhstan rank
172nd
Rwanda rank
171st
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met over time
- Kazakhstan
- Rwanda
How they compare
Rwanda currently reports 17.93 against 13.05 in Kazakhstan, a difference of 4.88.
That makes Rwanda's figure about 1.4 times Kazakhstan's.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Rwanda has been ahead every year.
Kazakhstan ranks 172nd and Rwanda ranks 171st of 181 countries.
Rwanda has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kazakhstan | Rwanda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.55 | 17.02 | 13.47 | Rwanda |
| 2010s | 18.83 | 34.71 | 15.88 | Rwanda |
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, Kazakhstan or Rwanda?
- Rwanda, at 17.93 against 13.05 in Kazakhstan as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Kazakhstan and Rwanda?
- 4.88, with Rwanda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kazakhstan and Rwanda?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Kazakhstan and Rwanda rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
- Kazakhstan ranks 172nd and Rwanda ranks 171st 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
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.