Statizoid

Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Namibia

Namibia: Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages was 0 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
0 DB16-20 methodology
World rank
90th
of 186 countries
All-time high
0 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
0 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019

Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Namibia, 2014–2019

00.20.40.60.812014201620192014: 0 DB16-20 methodology2015: 0 DB16-20 methodology2016: 0 DB16-20 methodology2017: 0 DB16-20 methodology2018: 0 DB16-20 methodology2019: 0 DB16-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.

Analysis

Namibia recorded 0 DB16-20 methodology for getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

Namibia ranks 90th of 186 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Namibia

  1. 90 China, People's Republic of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  2. 90 Bangladesh 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  3. 90 Nigeria 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  4. 90 Mexico 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  5. 90 Afghanistan 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  6. 90 Algeria 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 90 Antigua and Barbuda 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 90 Austria 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 90 Azerbaijan, Republic of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 90 Bahamas 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 90 Bahrain, Kingdom of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 90 Belize 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 90 Benin 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 90 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 90 Botswana 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 90 Burkina Faso 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 90 Burundi 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 90 Cabo Verde 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 90 Cambodia 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 90 Canada 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 90 Central African Republic 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 90 Chad 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 90 Comoros 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 90 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 90 Congo, Republic of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 90 Denmark 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 90 Djibouti 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 90 Dominica 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 90 Dominican Republic 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 90 Egypt 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 90 Equatorial Guinea 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 90 Eswatini 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 90 Ethiopia, The Federal Democratic Republic of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 90 Fiji 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 90 Gabon 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 90 Gambia 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 90 Ghana 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 90 Grenada 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 90 Guinea 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 90 Guinea-Bissau 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 90 Haiti 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 90 Honduras 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 90 Iceland 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 90 Iran, Islamic Republic of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 90 Iraq 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 90 Jordan 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 90 Kenya 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 90 Kuwait 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 90 Lao People's Democratic Republic 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 90 Latvia 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 90 Lebanon 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 90 Lesotho 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 90 Liberia 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 90 Libya 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 90 Luxembourg 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 90 Madagascar 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 90 Malawi 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 90 Maldives 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 90 Mali 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 90 Malta 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 90 Marshall Islands 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 90 Mauritania 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 90 Micronesia, Federated States of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 90 Mongolia 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 90 Myanmar 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 90 Nepal 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  67. 90 Nicaragua 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  68. 90 Niger 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  69. 90 Palau 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  70. 90 Paraguay 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  71. 90 Puerto Rico 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  72. 90 Qatar 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  73. 90 Samoa 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  74. 90 San Marino, Republic of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  75. 90 Serbia 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  76. 90 Seychelles 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  77. 90 Sierra Leone 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  78. 90 Solomon Islands 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  79. 90 South Africa 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  80. 90 Sri Lanka 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  81. 90 St. Kitts and Nevis 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  82. 90 St. Lucia 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  83. 90 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  84. 90 Sudan 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  85. 90 Suriname 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  86. 90 Switzerland 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  87. 90 Syrian Arab Republic 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  88. 90 Tajikistan, Republic of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  89. 90 Timor-Leste 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  90. 90 Tonga 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  91. 90 Tunisia 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  92. 90 Uganda 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  93. 90 Venezuela, República Bolivariana de 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  94. 90 Palestine, State of 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  95. 90 Zambia 0 DB16-20 methodology compare
  96. 90 Zimbabwe 0 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 186 places →

More private sector data for Namibia

All data for Namibia →

Frequently asked questions

What is getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Namibia?
Getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Namibia was 0 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages recorded in Namibia?
The highest recorded value was 0 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
What is the lowest getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages recorded in Namibia?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does Namibia rank for getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages?
Namibia ranks 90th out of 186 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Namibia data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 6 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Namibia. Statizoid. Retrieved 19 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/getting-electricity-financial-deterrents-aimed-at-limiting-outages-0-1-db16-20-methodology/namibia/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/getting-electricity-financial-deterrents-aimed-at-limiting-outages-0-1-db16-20-methodology/namibia/">Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Namibia</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages (0-1) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
186 places, 1,116 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

Th financial deterrents index evaluates whether financial deterrents exist to limit outages. A score of 1 is assigned if the utility compensates customers when outages exceed a certain cap, if the utility is fined by the regulator when outages exceed a certain cap or if both these conditions are met. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.