Hong Kong, China vs Republic of Korea: Getting electricity: Procedures (number) - Score
Hong Kong, China
100
in 2019
Republic of Korea
100
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
1st
Republic of Korea rank
1st
Getting electricity: Procedures (number) - Score over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Republic of Korea
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 100 against 100 in Republic of Korea, a difference of 0.
Across all 11 years both countries report, Republic of Korea has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Republic of Korea ranks 1st of 190 countries.
Republic of Korea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Republic of Korea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 83.33 | 100 | 16.67 | Republic of Korea |
| 2010s | 90 | 100 | 10 | Republic of Korea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting electricity: procedures (number) - score, Hong Kong, China or Republic of Korea?
- Hong Kong, China, at 100 against 100 in Republic of Korea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: procedures (number) - score between Hong Kong, China and Republic of Korea?
- 0, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Republic of Korea?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Republic of Korea rank globally for getting electricity: procedures (number) - score?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and Republic of Korea ranks 1st of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting electricity: Procedures (number) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for the number of procedures 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.