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

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

Where does this Malta 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 Malta

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

Malta: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 was 80.83 in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)

80.83

Change on year

unchanged

World rank

59th

of 188 countries

All-time high

80.83

in 2014

All-time low

80.83

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

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

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

The most recent figure for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 in Malta is 80.83, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.

Malta ranks 59th of 188 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Malta

56 Tajikistan 81.39 compare
57 Laos 81.38 compare
58 Morocco 80.99 compare
60 Thailand 80.62 compare
61 Cambodia 80 compare
62 China 79.9 compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Malta

Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0121 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.0042 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 0.0205 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0008 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 0.0205 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0404 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.0227 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.0192 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 0.1009 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0043 (2050)

All data for Malta →

Frequently asked questions

What is trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 in Malta?: Trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 in Malta was 80.83 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in Malta?: The highest recorded value was 80.83 in 2014.
What is the lowest trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 recorded in Malta?: The lowest recorded value was 80.83 in 2014.
How does Malta rank for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16?: Malta ranks 59th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 rising or falling in Malta?: Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Malta 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.