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

Laos
72.63
in 2014
Mexico
73.02
in 2014
Laos rank
128th
Mexico rank
127th

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

  • Laos
  • Mexico
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Mexico currently reports 73.02 against 72.63 in Laos, a difference of 0.39.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Mexico has been ahead every year.

Laos ranks 128th and Mexico ranks 127th of 181 countries.

Mexico has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Laos Mexico Difference Ahead
2000s 57.66 61.99 4.33 Mexico
2010s 66.37 71.9 5.53 Mexico

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, Laos or Mexico?
Mexico, at 73.02 against 72.63 in Laos as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Laos and Mexico?
0.39, with Mexico ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Laos and Mexico?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Laos and Mexico rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Laos ranks 128th and Mexico ranks 127th 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.