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

Malawi
55.14
in 2014
Mongolia
54.16
in 2014
Malawi rank
157th
Mongolia rank
158th

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

  • Malawi
  • Mongolia
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Malawi currently reports 55.14 against 54.16 in Mongolia, a difference of 0.98.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Mongolia ahead.

Malawi ranks 157th and Mongolia ranks 158th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Malawi Mongolia Difference Ahead
2000s 3.91 14.13 10.22 Mongolia
2010s 38.14 46.41 8.27 Mongolia

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, Malawi or Mongolia?
Malawi, at 55.14 against 54.16 in Mongolia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Malawi and Mongolia?
0.98, with Malawi ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Malawi and Mongolia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Malawi and Mongolia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Malawi ranks 157th and Mongolia ranks 158th 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.