Afghanistan vs Cote d'Ivoire: Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)
Afghanistan
68.6%
in 2019
Cote d'Ivoire
72.9%
in 2019
Afghanistan rank
168th
Cote d'Ivoire rank
166th
Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) over time
- Afghanistan
- Cote d'Ivoire
How they compare
Cote d'Ivoire currently reports 72.9% against 68.6% in Afghanistan, a difference of 4.3%.
That makes Cote d'Ivoire's figure about 1.1 times Afghanistan's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Afghanistan ahead.
Afghanistan ranks 168th and Cote d'Ivoire ranks 166th of 191 countries.
Afghanistan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Afghanistan | Cote d'Ivoire | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 92.4% | 48.3% | 44.1% | Afghanistan |
| 2010s | 65.5% | 63.2% | 2.3% | Afghanistan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita), Afghanistan or Cote d'Ivoire?
- Cote d'Ivoire, at 72.9% against 68.6% in Afghanistan as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) between Afghanistan and Cote d'Ivoire?
- 4.3%, with Cote d'Ivoire ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Afghanistan and Cote d'Ivoire?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do Afghanistan and Cote d'Ivoire rank globally for getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)?
- Afghanistan ranks 168th and Cote d'Ivoire ranks 166th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for cost 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.