Statizoid

Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Sudan

Sudan: Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages was 0 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ◆ Volatile

Latest (2019)
0 DB16-20 methodology
World rank
91st
of 187 countries
All-time high
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
0 DB16-20 methodology
in 2015
Years of data
6
2014–2019

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

00.20.40.60.812014201620192014: 1 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

In 2019, getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Sudan stood at 0 DB16-20 methodology. That is the lowest value across all 6 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is down 100.0% over ten years.

Sudan ranks 91st of 187 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Sudan, year by year

Year DB16-20 methodology Change
2014 1 DB16-20 methodology —
2015 0 DB16-20 methodology -100.0%
2016 0 DB16-20 methodology —
2017 0 DB16-20 methodology —
2018 0 DB16-20 methodology —
2019 0 DB16-20 methodology —

Countries ranked near Sudan

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

See the full ranking of 187 places →

More private sector data for Sudan

All data for Sudan →

Frequently asked questions

What is getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Sudan?
Getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Sudan 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 Sudan?
The highest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
What is the lowest getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages recorded in Sudan?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
How does Sudan rank for getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages?
Sudan ranks 91st out of 187 countries with data for 2019.
Is getting electricity: financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages rising or falling in Sudan?
Over the last ten years it is down 100.0%. The long-run trend across the full record is volatile.
Where does this Sudan 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 Sudan. Statizoid. Retrieved 25 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/getting-electricity-financial-deterrents-aimed-at-limiting-outages-0-1-db16-20-methodology/sudan/

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/sudan/">Getting electricity: Financial deterrents aimed at limiting outages in Sudan</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
187 places, 1,122 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.