Palau, Republic of vs Sri Lanka: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Palau, Republic of
94.47
in 2014
Sri Lanka
94.29
in 2014
Palau, Republic of rank
14th
Sri Lanka rank
15th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Palau, Republic of
- Sri Lanka
How they compare
Palau, Republic of currently reports 94.47 against 94.29 in Sri Lanka, a difference of 0.18.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Palau, Republic of ahead.
Palau, Republic of ranks 14th and Sri Lanka ranks 15th of 183 countries.
Palau, Republic of has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Palau, Republic of | Sri Lanka | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 87.82 | 85.36 | 2.46 | Palau, Republic of |
| 2010s | 93.85 | 91.94 | 1.92 | Palau, Republic of |
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), Palau, Republic of or Sri Lanka?
- Palau, Republic of, at 94.47 against 94.29 in Sri Lanka as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Palau, Republic of and Sri Lanka?
- 0.18, with Palau, Republic of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Palau, Republic of and Sri Lanka?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Palau, Republic of and Sri Lanka rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Palau, Republic of ranks 14th and Sri Lanka ranks 15th 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.