Papua New Guinea vs Saudi Arabia: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Papua New Guinea
82.57
in 2014
Saudi Arabia
83.3
in 2014
Papua New Guinea rank
84th
Saudi Arabia rank
81st
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Saudi Arabia
How they compare
Saudi Arabia currently reports 83.3 against 82.57 in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 0.73.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Saudi Arabia has been ahead every year.
Papua New Guinea ranks 84th and Saudi Arabia ranks 81st of 184 countries.
Saudi Arabia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Saudi Arabia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 81.65 | 89.6 | 7.95 | Saudi Arabia |
| 2010s | 83.77 | 85.27 | 1.5 | Saudi Arabia |
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), Papua New Guinea or Saudi Arabia?
- Saudi Arabia, at 83.3 against 82.57 in Papua New Guinea as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Papua New Guinea and Saudi Arabia?
- 0.73, with Saudi Arabia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Saudi Arabia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Saudi Arabia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 84th and Saudi Arabia ranks 81st of 184 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.