Equatorial Guinea vs Tajikistan: Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)
Equatorial Guinea
89.0%
in 2019
Tajikistan
89.3%
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
140th
Tajikistan rank
138th
Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Tajikistan
How they compare
Tajikistan currently reports 89.3% against 89.0% in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.3%.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 140th and Tajikistan ranks 138th of 191 countries.
Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Tajikistan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 94.0% | 78.8% | 15.2% | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 90.6% | 87.5% | 3.1% | Equatorial Guinea |
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), Equatorial Guinea or Tajikistan?
- Tajikistan, at 89.3% against 89.0% in Equatorial Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) between Equatorial Guinea and Tajikistan?
- 0.3%, with Tajikistan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Tajikistan?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Tajikistan rank globally for getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 140th and Tajikistan ranks 138th 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.