North Macedonia vs إسبانيا: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
North Macedonia
82.04
in 2014
إسبانيا
81.68
in 2014
North Macedonia rank
89th
إسبانيا rank
90th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- North Macedonia
- إسبانيا
How they compare
North Macedonia currently reports 82.04 against 81.68 in إسبانيا, a difference of 0.36.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was إسبانيا ahead.
North Macedonia ranks 89th and إسبانيا ranks 90th of 183 countries.
إسبانيا has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | North Macedonia | إسبانيا | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 80.34 | 83.76 | 3.42 | إسبانيا |
| 2010s | 81.55 | 82.26 | 0.7119 | إسبانيا |
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), North Macedonia or إسبانيا?
- North Macedonia, at 82.04 against 81.68 in إسبانيا as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between North Macedonia and إسبانيا?
- 0.36, with North Macedonia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for North Macedonia and إسبانيا?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do North Macedonia and إسبانيا rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- North Macedonia ranks 89th and إسبانيا ranks 90th 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.