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

Over the last ten years it is up 110.7%. 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 import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

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

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

China: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 was 79.9 in 2019. ▲ Rising

Latest (2019)

79.9

Change on year

up 9.7%

World rank

62nd

of 188 countries

All-time high

79.9

in 2019

All-time low

37.92

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

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

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

China recorded 79.9 for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

The figure is up 9.7% on the previous year and up 110.7% over ten years.

That places China 62nd out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near China

59 Malta 80.83 compare
60 Thailand 80.62 compare
61 Cambodia 80 compare
63 Oman 79.7 compare
64 Ecuador 79.17 compare
65 Ireland 78.92 compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for China

Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 350.74 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management 1,546 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Manure left on Pa 92,945 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 1,480 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Manure Management 54,644 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 303.29 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 18.8 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 303.29 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - IPCC Agriculture 392,076 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Manure applied to 43,889 (2050)

All data for China →

Frequently asked questions

What is trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 in China?: Trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 in China was 79.9 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in China?: The highest recorded value was 79.9 in 2019.
What is the lowest trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in China?: The lowest recorded value was 37.92 in 2014.
How does China rank for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16?: China ranks 62nd out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 rising or falling in China?: Over the last ten years it is up 110.7%. 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 import: 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 import: 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 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 DB16-20 studies.