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

Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.

Where does this Ecuador 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 Ecuador

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

Ecuador: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 was 47.17 in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)

47.17

Change on year

unchanged

World rank

142nd

of 188 countries

All-time high

47.17

in 2014

All-time low

47.17

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

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

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

The most recent figure for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 in Ecuador is 47.17, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.

That places Ecuador 142nd out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the bottom quarter.

Countries ranked near Ecuador

139 Antigua and Barbuda 48.45 compare
140 Senegal 48.42 compare
141 Sierra Leone 47.94 compare
143 Libya 45.77 compare
144 Russia 45.28 compare
145 Guinea-Bissau 44.81 compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Ecuador

Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.9379 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 2.51 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 4.74 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.1826 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 4.74 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 3.14 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 1.18 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 13.63 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 23.57 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.9943 (2050)

All data for Ecuador →

Frequently asked questions

What is trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 in Ecuador?: Trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 in Ecuador was 47.17 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in Ecuador?: The highest recorded value was 47.17 in 2014.
What is the lowest trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in Ecuador?: The lowest recorded value was 47.17 in 2014.
How does Ecuador rank for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16?: Ecuador ranks 142nd out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) (db16 rising or falling in Ecuador?: Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Ecuador 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.