North Macedonia vs Tanzania, United Republic of: Getting electricity: Reliability of supply and transparency of tariff
North Macedonia
62.5
in 2019
Tanzania, United Republic of
62.5
in 2019
North Macedonia rank
90th
Tanzania, United Republic of rank
90th
Getting electricity: Reliability of supply and transparency of tariff over time
- North Macedonia
- Tanzania, United Republic of
How they compare
North Macedonia currently reports 62.5 against 62.5 in Tanzania, United Republic of, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 6 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Tanzania, United Republic of ahead.
North Macedonia ranks 90th and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 90th of 191 countries.
North Macedonia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting electricity: reliability of supply and transparency of tariff, North Macedonia or Tanzania, United Republic of?
- North Macedonia, at 62.5 against 62.5 in Tanzania, United Republic of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: reliability of supply and transparency of tariff between North Macedonia and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 0, with North Macedonia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for North Macedonia and Tanzania, United Republic of?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do North Macedonia and Tanzania, United Republic of rank globally for getting electricity: reliability of supply and transparency of tariff?
- North Macedonia ranks 90th and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 90th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting electricity: Reliability of supply and transparency of tariff index (0-8) (DB16-20 methodology) - 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 reliability of supply and transparency of tariff index 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, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.