Ghana vs Marshall Islands: Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)
Ghana
92.2%
in 2019
Marshall Islands
92.1%
in 2019
Ghana rank
124th
Marshall Islands rank
125th
Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) over time
- Ghana
- Marshall Islands
How they compare
Ghana currently reports 92.2% against 92.1% in Marshall Islands, a difference of 0.1%.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 11 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Marshall Islands ahead.
Ghana ranks 124th and Marshall Islands ranks 125th of 191 countries.
Marshall Islands has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ghana | Marshall Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 27.1% | 88.6% | 61.5% | Marshall Islands |
| 2010s | 75.7% | 90.6% | 15.0% | Marshall Islands |
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), Ghana or Marshall Islands?
- Ghana, at 92.2% against 92.1% in Marshall Islands as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) between Ghana and Marshall Islands?
- 0.1%, with Ghana ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ghana and Marshall Islands?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do Ghana and Marshall Islands rank globally for getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)?
- Ghana ranks 124th and Marshall Islands ranks 125th 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.