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

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

Where does this Georgia 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 Georgia

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

Georgia: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 was 66.96 in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)

66.96

Change on year

unchanged

World rank

98th

of 188 countries

All-time high

66.96

in 2014

All-time low

66.96

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

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

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

The most recent figure for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 in Georgia is 66.96, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.

That places Georgia 98th out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Georgia

95 Indonesia 68.12 compare
96 Puerto Rico 67.86 compare
97 Brunei 67.08 compare
99 Bahrain 66.92 compare
100 Mozambique 66.75 compare
101 Nicaragua 66.69 compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Georgia

Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.097 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.684 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 1.01 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0278 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 1.01 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.3252 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.2904 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 3.69 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 5.28 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.1515 (2050)

All data for Georgia →

Frequently asked questions

What is trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 in Georgia?: Trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 in Georgia was 66.96 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in Georgia?: The highest recorded value was 66.96 in 2014.
What is the lowest trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in Georgia?: The lowest recorded value was 66.96 in 2014.
How does Georgia rank for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16?: Georgia ranks 98th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 rising or falling in Georgia?: Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Georgia 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.