Kazakhstan vs Chinese Taipei: Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)
Kazakhstan
99.6%
in 2019
Chinese Taipei
99.5%
in 2019
Kazakhstan rank
33rd
Chinese Taipei rank
36th
Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) over time
- Kazakhstan
- Chinese Taipei
How they compare
Kazakhstan currently reports 99.6% against 99.5% in Chinese Taipei, a difference of 0.1%.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 11 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Chinese Taipei ahead.
Kazakhstan ranks 33rd and Chinese Taipei ranks 36th of 191 countries.
Chinese Taipei has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kazakhstan | Chinese Taipei | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 98.6% | 99.4% | 0.8% | Chinese Taipei |
| 2010s | 99.2% | 99.5% | 0.2% | Chinese Taipei |
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), Kazakhstan or Chinese Taipei?
- Kazakhstan, at 99.6% against 99.5% in Chinese Taipei as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) between Kazakhstan and Chinese Taipei?
- 0.1%, with Kazakhstan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kazakhstan and Chinese Taipei?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do Kazakhstan and Chinese Taipei rank globally for getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)?
- Kazakhstan ranks 33rd and Chinese Taipei ranks 36th 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.