Micronesia (country) vs Poland: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Micronesia (country)
87.99
in 2014
Poland
88.34
in 2014
Micronesia (country) rank
57th
Poland rank
54th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Micronesia (country)
- Poland
How they compare
Poland currently reports 88.34 against 87.99 in Micronesia (country), a difference of 0.35.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Poland has been ahead every year.
Micronesia (country) ranks 57th and Poland ranks 54th of 184 countries.
Poland has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Micronesia (country) | Poland | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 81.09 | 88.5 | 7.42 | Poland |
| 2010s | 86.75 | 88.28 | 1.53 | Poland |
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), Micronesia (country) or Poland?
- Poland, at 88.34 against 87.99 in Micronesia (country) as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Micronesia (country) and Poland?
- 0.35, with Poland ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Micronesia (country) and Poland?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Micronesia (country) and Poland rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Micronesia (country) ranks 57th and Poland ranks 54th 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.