Cote d'Ivoire vs Mali: Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income) … Score
Cote d'Ivoire
72.9%
in 2019
Mali
68.2%
in 2019
Cote d'Ivoire rank
166th
Mali rank
169th
Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income) … Score over time
- Cote d'Ivoire
- Mali
How they compare
Cote d'Ivoire currently reports 72.9% against 68.2% in Mali, a difference of 4.7%.
That makes Cote d'Ivoire's figure about 1.1 times Mali's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Cote d'Ivoire ahead.
Cote d'Ivoire ranks 166th and Mali ranks 169th of 191 countries.
Cote d'Ivoire has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cote d'Ivoire | Mali | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 48.3% | 47.8% | 0.5% | Cote d'Ivoire |
| 2010s | 63.2% | 57.3% | 5.9% | Cote d'Ivoire |
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), Cote d'Ivoire or Mali?
- Cote d'Ivoire, at 72.9% against 68.2% in Mali as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) between Cote d'Ivoire and Mali?
- 4.7%, with Cote d'Ivoire ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cote d'Ivoire and Mali?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do Cote d'Ivoire and Mali rank globally for getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)?
- Cote d'Ivoire ranks 166th and Mali ranks 169th 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.