Micronesia (country) vs Qatar: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met
Micronesia (country)
87.99
in 2014
Qatar
87.9
in 2014
Micronesia (country) rank
56th
Qatar rank
57th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met over time
- Micronesia (country)
- Qatar
How they compare
Micronesia (country) currently reports 87.99 against 87.9 in Qatar, a difference of 0.09.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 8 shared years of data; in 2007 it was Micronesia (country) ahead.
Micronesia (country) ranks 56th and Qatar ranks 57th of 181 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Micronesia (country) averaged higher in 1 and Qatar in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Micronesia (country) | Qatar | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 83.9 | 85.03 | 1.12 | Qatar |
| 2010s | 86.75 | 86 | 0.7427 | Micronesia (country) |
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, Micronesia (country) or Qatar?
- Micronesia (country), at 87.99 against 87.9 in Qatar as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Micronesia (country) and Qatar?
- 0.09, with Micronesia (country) ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Micronesia (country) and Qatar?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2007 to 2014.
- How do Micronesia (country) and Qatar rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
- Micronesia (country) ranks 56th and Qatar ranks 57th 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
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.