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

Moldova
73.34
in 2014
Namibia
74.49
in 2014
Moldova rank
126th
Namibia rank
125th

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

  • Moldova
  • Namibia
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Namibia currently reports 74.49 against 73.34 in Moldova, a difference of 1.15.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Namibia has been ahead every year.

Moldova ranks 126th and Namibia ranks 125th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Moldova Namibia Difference Ahead
2000s 49.3 74.87 25.57 Namibia
2010s 67.67 79.01 11.34 Namibia

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, Moldova or Namibia?
Namibia, at 74.49 against 73.34 in Moldova as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Moldova and Namibia?
1.15, with Namibia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Moldova and Namibia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Moldova and Namibia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Moldova ranks 126th and Namibia ranks 125th 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.