Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Lithuania
Lithuania: Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Lithuania, 2014–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
In 2019, getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Lithuania stood at 1 DB16-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
That places Lithuania 1st out of 187 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.
Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Lithuania, 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 Lithuania
- 1 China 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 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 Russia 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 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 Cote 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 South 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 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 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 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 Turkey 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 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 Vietnam 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 1 Palestine 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 Lithuania
- Merchandise trade 95.2% (2025)
- Food imports 13.1% (2025)
- Manufactures imports 63.0% (2025)
- Merchandise imports 49.01 billion current US$ (2025)
- Food exports 19.7% (2025)
- Manufactures exports 60.0% (2025)
- Merchandise exports 41.63 billion current US$ (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 14,410 current US$ per person (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.4372 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), annual growth rate 4.55 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Lithuania?
- Getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Lithuania was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) recorded in Lithuania?
- The highest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- What is the lowest getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) recorded in Lithuania?
- The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
- How does Lithuania rank for getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1)?
- Lithuania ranks 1st out of 187 countries with data for 2019.
- Is getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) rising or falling in Lithuania?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Lithuania 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.