Nepal vs Russian Federation: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Nepal
59.49
in 2014
Russian Federation
60.47
in 2014
Nepal rank
157th
Russian Federation rank
155th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Nepal
- Russian Federation
How they compare
Russian Federation currently reports 60.47 against 59.49 in Nepal, a difference of 0.98.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Nepal ahead.
Nepal ranks 157th and Russian Federation ranks 155th of 183 countries.
Nepal has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Nepal | Russian Federation | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 45.99 | 37.28 | 8.72 | Nepal |
| 2010s | 59.48 | 51.46 | 8.02 | Nepal |
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), Nepal or Russian Federation?
- Russian Federation, at 60.47 against 59.49 in Nepal as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Nepal and Russian Federation?
- 0.98, with Russian Federation ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Nepal and Russian Federation?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Nepal and Russian Federation rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Nepal ranks 157th and Russian Federation ranks 155th of 183 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.