Is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( rising or falling in Libya?

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

Where does this Libya data come from?

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

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Libya

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

Libya: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( was 91.43 in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)

91.43

Change on year

unchanged

World rank

56th

of 188 countries

All-time high

91.43

in 2014

All-time low

91.43

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Libya, 2014–2019

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

The most recent figure for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Libya is 91.43, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.

Libya ranks 56th of 188 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Libya

53 Turkey 92.14 compare
54 Hong Kong 91.89 compare
55 Fiji 91.79 compare
56 Malaysia 91.43 compare
56 Montenegro 91.43 compare
56 Mozambique 91.43 compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Libya

Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Manure applied to 56.6 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Agricultural Soil 2,049 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure Management 139.01 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Crop Residues 30.32 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Manure left on Pa 1,541 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Manure Management 23.14 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 7.73 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Enteric Fermentation 2,614 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - IPCC Agriculture 4,806 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Burning - Crop re 0.8811 (2050)

All data for Libya →

Frequently asked questions

What is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Libya?: Trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Libya was 91.43 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( recorded in Libya?: The highest recorded value was 91.43 in 2014.
What is the lowest trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( recorded in Libya?: The lowest recorded value was 91.43 in 2014.
How does Libya rank for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) (?: Libya ranks 56th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( rising or falling in Libya?: Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Libya data come from?: The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary 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: Documentary 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 documentary 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.