Is trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 rising or falling in China?

Over the last ten years it is up 39.6%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.

Where does this China data come from?

The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 in China

Name: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 in China
Creator: World Bank
License: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)

China: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 was 75.83 in 2019. ▲ Rising

Latest (2019)

75.83

Change on year

up 7.7%

World rank

71st

of 188 countries

All-time high

75.83

in 2019

All-time low

54.33

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 in China, 2014–2019

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

The most recent figure for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 in China is 75.83, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is up 7.7% on the previous year and up 39.6% over ten years.

China ranks 71st of 188 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near China

68 Nicaragua 77.36 compare
69 Mali 77.2 compare
70 Malawi 77.08 compare
72 Egypt 75.66 compare
73 Burkina Faso 75.38 compare
74 Panama 74.53 compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for China

Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 49.4 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 303.29 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 75.5 (2050)
Emission Totals - Direct emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 966.05 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Crop Residues 27,128 (2050)
Emission Totals - Direct emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 275.23 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Burning - Crop residues 5,377 (2050)
Emission Totals - Direct emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 966.05 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Agricultural Soils 336,373 (2050)
Emission Totals - Direct emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 116.22 (2050)

All data for China →

Frequently asked questions

What is trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 in China?: Trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 in China was 75.83 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in China?: The highest recorded value was 75.83 in 2019.
What is the lowest trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in China?: The lowest recorded value was 54.33 in 2014.
How does China rank for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16?: China ranks 71st out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 rising or falling in China?: Over the last ten years it is up 39.6%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
Where does this China data come from?: The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 6 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

About this data

Indicator: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source: World Bank
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage: 190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed: 10 August 2026

The score for the cost for border compliance to export 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 DB16-20 studies.