Statizoid

Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Samoa

Samoa: Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
1 DB16-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
of 187 countries
All-time high
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
All-time low
1 DB16-20 methodology
in 2014
Years of data
6
2014–2019

Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Samoa, 2014–2019

00.20.40.60.812014201620192014: 1 DB16-20 methodology2015: 1 DB16-20 methodology2016: 1 DB16-20 methodology2017: 1 DB16-20 methodology2018: 1 DB16-20 methodology2019: 1 DB16-20 methodology

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

Analysis

The most recent figure for getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Samoa is 1 DB16-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.

Samoa ranks 1st of 187 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.

Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Samoa, 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 Samoa

  1. 1 China 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  2. 1 Bangladesh 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  3. 1 India 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  4. 1 Indonesia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  5. 1 Nigeria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  6. 1 Pakistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  7. 1 Mexico 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  8. 1 Russia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  9. 1 Japan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  10. 1 Brazil 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  11. 1 Albania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  12. 1 Algeria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  13. 1 Angola 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  14. 1 Argentina 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  15. 1 Armenia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  16. 1 Australia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  17. 1 Austria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  18. 1 Azerbaijan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  19. 1 Bahamas 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  20. 1 Barbados 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  21. 1 Belarus 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  22. 1 Belgium 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  23. 1 Belize 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  24. 1 Bhutan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  25. 1 Bolivia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  26. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  27. 1 Bulgaria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  28. 1 Burkina Faso 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  29. 1 Burundi 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  30. 1 Cape Verde 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  31. 1 Cambodia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  32. 1 Cameroon 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  33. 1 Canada 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  34. 1 Chile 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  35. 1 Colombia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  36. 1 Costa Rica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  37. 1 Cote d'Ivoire 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  38. 1 Croatia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  39. 1 Cyprus 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  40. 1 Czechia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  41. 1 Denmark 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  42. 1 Dominica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  43. 1 Dominican Republic 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  44. 1 Ecuador 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  45. 1 Egypt 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  46. 1 El Salvador 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  47. 1 Estonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  48. 1 Eswatini 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  49. 1 Finland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  50. 1 France 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  51. 1 Gabon 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  52. 1 Gambia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  53. 1 Georgia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  54. 1 Germany 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  55. 1 Ghana 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  56. 1 Greece 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  57. 1 Guatemala 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  58. 1 Guyana 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  59. 1 Hong Kong 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  60. 1 Hungary 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  61. 1 Iceland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  62. 1 Iran 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  63. 1 Ireland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  64. 1 Israel 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  65. 1 Italy 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  66. 1 Jamaica 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  67. 1 Jordan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  68. 1 Kazakhstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  69. 1 Kenya 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  70. 1 South Korea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  71. 1 Kosovo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  72. 1 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  73. 1 Latvia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  74. 1 Lesotho 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  75. 1 Lithuania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  76. 1 Luxembourg 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  77. 1 Malawi 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  78. 1 Malaysia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  79. 1 Mali 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  80. 1 Malta 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  81. 1 Mauritania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  82. 1 Moldova 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  83. 1 Mongolia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  84. 1 Montenegro 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  85. 1 Morocco 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  86. 1 Mozambique 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  87. 1 Netherlands 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  88. 1 New Zealand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  89. 1 Nicaragua 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  90. 1 Niger 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  91. 1 North Macedonia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  92. 1 Norway 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  93. 1 Oman 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  94. 1 Panama 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  95. 1 Papua New Guinea 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  96. 1 Peru 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  97. 1 Philippines 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  98. 1 Poland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  99. 1 Portugal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  100. 1 Romania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  101. 1 Rwanda 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  102. 1 San Marino 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  103. 1 Saudi Arabia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  104. 1 Senegal 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  105. 1 Serbia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  106. 1 Singapore 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  107. 1 Slovakia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  108. 1 Slovenia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  109. 1 South Africa 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  110. 1 Spain 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  111. 1 Sri Lanka 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  112. 1 Saint Lucia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  113. 1 Sweden 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  114. 1 Switzerland 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  115. 1 Syria 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  116. 1 Taiwan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  117. 1 Tanzania 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  118. 1 Thailand 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  119. 1 Togo 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  120. 1 Tonga 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  121. 1 Trinidad and Tobago 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  122. 1 Tunisia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  123. 1 Turkey 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  124. 1 Uganda 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  125. 1 Ukraine 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  126. 1 United Arab Emirates 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  127. 1 United Kingdom 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  128. 1 Uruguay 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  129. 1 Uzbekistan 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  130. 1 Vanuatu 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  131. 1 Vietnam 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  132. 1 Palestine 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  133. 1 Zambia 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  134. 1 Zimbabwe 1 DB16-20 methodology compare
  135. 1 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 1 DB16-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 187 places →

More private sector data for Samoa

All data for Samoa →

Frequently asked questions

What is getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Samoa?
Getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Samoa was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) recorded in Samoa?
The highest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
What is the lowest getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) recorded in Samoa?
The lowest recorded value was 1 DB16-20 methodology in 2014.
How does Samoa rank for getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1)?
Samoa ranks 1st out of 187 countries with data for 2019.
Is getting electricity: regulatory monitoring (0-1) rising or falling in Samoa?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Samoa 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).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Samoa. Statizoid. Retrieved 27 August 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/stat/getting-electricity-regulatory-monitoring-0-1-db16-20-methodology/samoa/

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-regulatory-monitoring-0-1-db16-20-methodology/samoa/">Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (0-1) in Samoa</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Getting electricity: Regulatory monitoring (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

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.