Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in China
China: Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in China, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
The most recent figure for getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) in China is 1 DB16-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
That places China 1st out of 187 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.
Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in China, year by year
| Year | DB16-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | — |
| 2015 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 1 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Countries ranked near China
- 1 Bangladesh 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 India 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Indonesia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Nigeria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Pakistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mexico 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Russian Federation 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Japan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Brazil 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Albania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Algeria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Angola 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Argentina 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Armenia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Australia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Austria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Azerbaijan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bahamas 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Barbados 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belarus 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belgium 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Belize 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bhutan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bulgaria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Burkina Faso 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Burundi 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cape Verde 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cambodia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cameroon 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Canada 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Chile 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Colombia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Costa Rica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Côte d'Ivoire 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Croatia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cyprus 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Czechia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Denmark 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Dominica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Dominican Republic 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ecuador 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Egypt 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 El Salvador 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Estonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Eswatini 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Finland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 France 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Gabon 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Gambia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Georgia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Germany 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ghana 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Greece 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Guatemala 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Guyana 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Hong Kong 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Hungary 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iceland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Iran 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ireland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Israel 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Italy 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Jamaica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Jordan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kazakhstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kenya 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Republic of Korea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kosovo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Latvia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Lesotho 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Lithuania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Luxembourg 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malawi 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malaysia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mali 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Malta 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mauritania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Republic of Moldova 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mongolia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Montenegro 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Morocco 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Mozambique 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Netherlands 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 New Zealand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Nicaragua 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Niger 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 North Macedonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Norway 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Oman 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Panama 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Papua New Guinea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Peru 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Philippines 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Poland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Portugal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Romania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Rwanda 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Samoa 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 San Marino 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saudi Arabia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Senegal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Serbia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Singapore 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Slovakia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Slovenia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 South Africa 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Spain 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sri Lanka 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Saint Lucia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Sweden 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Switzerland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Syria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Taiwan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tanzania, United Republic of 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Thailand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Togo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tonga 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Trinidad and Tobago 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Tunisia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Türkiye 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uganda 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Ukraine 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United Arab Emirates 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uruguay 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Uzbekistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Vanuatu 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Viet Nam 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Palestine, State of 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Zambia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Zimbabwe 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
More private sector data for China
- Merchandise trade 32.6% (2025)
- Food imports 8.1% (2024)
- Manufactures imports 49.3% (2024)
- Merchandise imports 2.58 trillion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 2.4% (2024)
- Manufactures exports 91.2% (2024)
- Merchandise exports 3.77 trillion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 2,682 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.1934 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 5.48 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) in China?
- Getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) in China was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) recorded in China?
- The highest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- What is the lowest getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) recorded in China?
- The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does China rank for getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1)?
- China ranks 1st out of 187 countries with data for 2019.
- Is getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) rising or falling in China?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this China data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (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).
About this data
The regulatory monitoring index evaluates whether a regulator—that is, an entity separate from the utility—monitors the utility’s performance on reliability of supply. A score of 1 is assigned if the regulator performs periodic or real-time reviews. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.