Malaysia vs Papua New Guinea: Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)
Malaysia
99.7%
in 2019
Papua New Guinea
99.7%
in 2019
Malaysia rank
23rd
Papua New Guinea rank
24th
Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) over time
- Malaysia
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Malaysia currently reports 99.7% against 99.7% in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Malaysia ahead.
Malaysia ranks 23rd and Papua New Guinea ranks 24th of 191 countries.
Malaysia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Malaysia | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 99.5% | 99.1% | 0.4% | Malaysia |
| 2010s | 99.6% | 99.4% | 0.2% | Malaysia |
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), Malaysia or Papua New Guinea?
- Malaysia, at 99.7% against 99.7% in Papua New Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) between Malaysia and Papua New Guinea?
- 0.0%, with Malaysia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Malaysia and Papua New Guinea?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do Malaysia and Papua New Guinea rank globally for getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)?
- Malaysia ranks 23rd and Papua New Guinea ranks 24th 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.