Nepal vs Saint Kitts and Nevis: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Nepal
59.49
in 2014
Saint Kitts and Nevis
60.11
in 2014
Nepal rank
157th
Saint Kitts and Nevis rank
156th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Nepal
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
How they compare
Saint Kitts and Nevis currently reports 60.11 against 59.49 in Nepal, a difference of 0.62.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
Nepal ranks 157th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 156th of 183 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Nepal averaged higher in 1 and Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Nepal | Saint Kitts and Nevis | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 45.99 | 56.14 | 10.14 | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| 2010s | 59.48 | 59.03 | 0.4533 | 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 Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis, at 60.11 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 Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 0.62, with Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Nepal and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Nepal and Saint Kitts and Nevis rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Nepal ranks 157th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 156th 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.