Lebanon vs Papua New Guinea: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Lebanon
82.3
in 2014
Papua New Guinea
82.57
in 2014
Lebanon rank
87th
Papua New Guinea rank
84th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Lebanon
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 82.57 against 82.3 in Lebanon, a difference of 0.27.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Lebanon ahead.
Lebanon ranks 87th and Papua New Guinea ranks 84th of 184 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Lebanon averaged higher in 1 and Papua New Guinea in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Lebanon | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 86.31 | 81.65 | 4.66 | Lebanon |
| 2010s | 82.91 | 83.77 | 0.8558 | Papua New Guinea |
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), Lebanon or Papua New Guinea?
- Papua New Guinea, at 82.57 against 82.3 in Lebanon as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Lebanon and Papua New Guinea?
- 0.27, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Lebanon and Papua New Guinea?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Lebanon and Papua New Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Lebanon ranks 87th and Papua New Guinea ranks 84th 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.