Luxembourg vs Palestine, State of: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Luxembourg
81.33
in 2014
Palestine, State of
81.24
in 2014
Luxembourg rank
92nd
Palestine, State of rank
93rd
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Luxembourg
- Palestine, State of
How they compare
Luxembourg currently reports 81.33 against 81.24 in Palestine, State of, a difference of 0.09.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Palestine, State of ahead.
Luxembourg ranks 92nd and Palestine, State of ranks 93rd of 184 countries.
Palestine, State of has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Luxembourg | Palestine, State of | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 76.97 | 80.13 | 3.16 | Palestine, State of |
| 2010s | 79.24 | 82.1 | 2.86 | Palestine, State of |
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), Luxembourg or Palestine, State of?
- Luxembourg, at 81.33 against 81.24 in Palestine, State of as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Luxembourg and Palestine, State of?
- 0.09, with Luxembourg ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Luxembourg and Palestine, State of?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2014.
- How do Luxembourg and Palestine, State of rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Luxembourg ranks 92nd and Palestine, State of ranks 93rd 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.