World Bank Doing Business data show an enormous spread in the standardized cost of obtaining a new electricity connection. Across 189 latest-available observations, the median is 291.1% of income per capita. Burundi has the highest latest value at 14,977.6%, followed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo at 13,108.0% and Benin at 11,584.3%. At the low end, the United Arab Emirates, China, and Japan are recorded at 0.0%.
This is not an electricity-tariff measure. The Doing Business indicator estimates the standardized cost of completing the procedures required to connect a warehouse to electricity and expresses that cost as a percentage of income per capita. The official definition includes fees and costs associated with clearances, applying for the connection, site and internal-wiring inspections, materials, connection works, and a security deposit; bribes are excluded. The result is a historical regulatory-cost benchmark, not a household power bill or a current project quote.
Table of Contents
What the indicator actually measures
The indicator code is IC.ELC.ACS.COST, Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita). The percentage compares a standardized warehouse-connection cost with income per capita. A value of 300% means the cost in the Doing Business scenario was about three times income per capita. A value of 10,000% corresponds to about 100 times income per capita.
Because the denominator is income per capita, the measure is not a simple international price list for transformers, cables, inspections, or utility work. The same dollar cost can produce a much larger percentage in a lower-income economy. Conversely, a high-income economy can have substantial nominal connection charges but a relatively small percentage. The indicator is designed to show the burden of a standardized connection cost relative to the economy’s income level.
Nearly all observations are from 2019, but three are older
Of the 189 latest values, 186 are from 2019. Eritrea, South Sudan, and Yemen are represented by 2014 observations. Their values are 3,078.5%, 3,236.9%, and 3,492.6%, respectively. The full map is therefore a latest-available comparison rather than a perfectly synchronized 2019 cross-section.
When only the 186 observations from 2019 are used, the median is 287.1% and the mean is 1,050.1%. Those figures are close to the full latest-value statistics, although the three 2014 observations all exceed 3,000% and raise the all-observation mean slightly. For claims specifically about 2019, the synchronized 186-economy subset is the cleaner comparison.
The global pattern has an exceptionally long upper tail
The first quartile across the latest observations is 62.3%, the median is 291.1%, and the third quartile is 994.2%. The mean is much higher at 1,085.3%. There are 47 economies at or above 1,000%, 9 at or above 5,000%, and 4 at or above 10,000%. These extreme values create a strongly right-skewed distribution.
Many of the highest values are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Benin, the Central African Republic, Chad, Burkina Faso, Uganda, the Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, and Niger are all near the top. That geographic concentration is descriptive, not a complete causal explanation. The ratio is shaped by both the connection costs in the standardized case and the income-per-capita denominator.
The highest latest-available values
| Economy | Connection cost / income per capita | Observation year |
|---|---|---|
| Burundi | 14,977.6% | 2019 |
| Congo, Dem. Rep. | 13,108.0% | 2019 |
| Benin | 11,584.3% | 2019 |
| Central African Republic | 10,000.5% | 2019 |
| Chad | 9,628.6% | 2019 |
| Burkina Faso | 8,977.4% | 2019 |
| Uganda | 6,930.1% | 2019 |
| Congo, Rep. | 5,569.3% | 2019 |
| Sierra Leone | 5,057.2% | 2019 |
| Niger | 4,664.2% | 2019 |
| Madagascar | 4,336.4% | 2019 |
| Mauritania | 3,929.3% | 2019 |
| Yemen, Rep. | 3,492.6% | 2014 |
| South Sudan | 3,236.9% | 2014 |
| Guinea | 3,232.2% | 2019 |
Burundi’s 14,977.6% can be read as roughly 149.8 times income per capita in the standardized case. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Benin are also above 100 times income per capita, while the Central African Republic is almost exactly 100 times. These numbers describe the relationship between a one-time connection process and income; they should not be described as electricity prices.
Three economies in the top group—Yemen, South Sudan, and Eritrea—use 2014 observations. They should not be discussed as if they reflect 2019 conditions. The broad high-cost pattern remains visible in the synchronized 2019 subset even when those three older observations are removed.
A synchronized 2019 comparison
| 2019 economy | Connection cost / income per capita |
|---|---|
| Burundi | 14,977.6% |
| Congo, Dem. Rep. | 13,108.0% |
| Benin | 11,584.3% |
| Central African Republic | 10,000.5% |
| Chad | 9,628.6% |
| Burkina Faso | 8,977.4% |
| Uganda | 6,930.1% |
| Congo, Rep. | 5,569.3% |
| Sierra Leone | 5,057.2% |
| Niger | 4,664.2% |
| Madagascar | 4,336.4% |
| Mauritania | 3,929.3% |
| Guinea | 3,232.2% |
| Sudan | 3,154.2% |
| Mozambique | 3,008.7% |
The 2019-only top group is dominated by African economies, with Afghanistan and Kiribati also appearing high in the distribution. The result identifies where the standardized financial burden of a connection was especially large relative to income. It does not rank overall electricity-system quality, investment attractiveness, power reliability, or the ease of doing business as a whole.
Doing Business treated getting electricity as a multi-dimensional topic. Cost was one component alongside the number of procedures, time, and—under later methodologies—reliability of supply and transparency of tariffs. A low connection cost does not guarantee short delays or reliable service, and a high cost does not by itself prove poor reliability.
How to interpret the lowest values
| Low 2019 value | Connection cost / income per capita |
|---|---|
| United Arab Emirates | 0.0% |
| China | 0.0% |
| Japan | 0.0% |
| Brazil | 0.5% |
| Hong Kong SAR, China | 1.3% |
| Thailand | 3.9% |
| Russian Federation | 4.7% |
| France | 5.0% |
| Liechtenstein | 7.9% |
| Qatar | 9.2% |
| Norway | 10.3% |
| Iceland | 10.3% |
| Uruguay | 10.3% |
| Australia | 12.1% |
| Israel | 13.3% |
In 2019 the United Arab Emirates, China, and Japan are recorded at 0.0%. Brazil is at 0.5% and Hong Kong SAR, China at 1.3%. A total of 59 economies are below 100%. A zero value does not mean electricity consumption was free. It means the recorded cost of the standardized new-connection procedures, relative to income per capita, was zero under the Doing Business case.
Low percentages also should not be generalized to every customer. The Doing Business case used a defined business, warehouse, connection capacity, location, and procedural assumptions. Industrial facilities, rural connections, large-load projects, sites requiring network reinforcement, or unusual technical conditions can face very different costs.
Why the standardized business case matters
The World Bank metadata explains that Doing Business used standardized assumptions to make cross-economy comparisons possible. For most economies, data referred to businesses in the largest business city and to a specified company form and size. That improves comparability but limits representativeness. Costs elsewhere in the country or for another business type can be different.
The methodology also assumed that the firm had complete information about required procedures and did not waste time. In practice, incomplete information, coordination problems, engineering changes, construction constraints, and local utility rules can alter the actual process. The indicator is therefore best treated as a historical benchmark from a controlled scenario rather than a direct estimate for a specific site.
These values are historical, not current 2026 connection prices
Most observations in this dataset are from survey year 2019, and the World Bank discontinued the Doing Business report in 2021. The figures should not be presented as current electricity-connection charges in 2026. They remain useful for historical comparison of standardized regulatory costs and for understanding how widely connection burdens differed under the Doing Business methodology.
A current project requires current utility tariffs, connection-charge schedules, capacity requirements, engineering specifications, taxes, deposits, construction costs, and local rules. A 2019 Doing Business percentage cannot substitute for a present-day quotation from the relevant utility or authority.
The distribution in ranges
The range distribution contains 40 economies from 0 to 50%, 19 from 50 to 100%, 36 from 100 to 300%, 47 from 300 to 1,000%, 29 from 1,000 to 3,000%, 9 from 3,000 to 5,000%, and 9 at 5,000% or above. The large upper tail explains why the mean exceeds 1,000% even though the median is below 300%.
This is a case where the median and quartiles are more informative than the mean alone. A global average can make the typical economy appear much more expensive because a relatively small number of very high percentages pull it upward. Reporting the center, spread, and extreme values together gives a more faithful picture.
Five rules for reading the indicator
- It is not an electricity-tariff indicator. It measures the procedural cost of obtaining a new connection for a standardized business case.
- The denominator is income per capita. The percentage depends on both connection cost and income level.
- The latest set is not perfectly same-year. 186 observations are from 2019 and three are from 2014.
- The scenario is standardized. The largest business city and specified warehouse/company assumptions do not represent every real project.
- It is historical. Doing Business was discontinued, so the figures are not current 2026 utility charges.
Source and definition
The official source is the World Bank Doing Business metadata for IC.ELC.ACS.COST. The World Bank defines the measure as the total median cost of completing the procedures required to connect a warehouse to electricity, expressed as a percentage of income per capita. The definition includes official procedural fees, inspections, materials, connection works, and a security deposit, while bribes are excluded. Data are reported by survey year.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this indicator an electricity tariff or monthly power bill?
No. It is the standardized cost of completing the procedures required to connect a warehouse to electricity, expressed as a percentage of income per capita.
How should a value of 14,977.6% be interpreted?
It corresponds to about 149.8 times income per capita in the Doing Business standardized case. It is not a quote for every real business connection.
Are these current 2026 electricity-connection prices?
No. Most observations are from 2019 and three are from 2014. Doing Business was discontinued, so current projects require current utility and regulatory information.
Related Articles
Green Map creates custom-edited map images using open geographic data sources such as geoBoundaries, Natural Earth, OpenStreetMap, and government open data. These maps are edited visual materials, not raw data files, and are provided for education, documents, presentations, and graphic reference.
