Small states vs Uzbekistan: CPIA building human resources rating
CPIA building human resources rating over time
- Small states
- Uzbekistan
How they compare
Uzbekistan currently reports 4 1=low to 6=high against 3.73 1=low to 6=high in Small states, a difference of 0.27 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Uzbekistan's figure about 1.1 times Small states's.
Across all 21 years both countries report, Uzbekistan has been ahead every year.
Small states ranks 15th and Uzbekistan ranks 17th of 42 groups.
Uzbekistan has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Small states | Uzbekistan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.54 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 0.4581 1=low to 6=high | Uzbekistan |
| 2010s | 3.68 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 0.3171 1=low to 6=high | Uzbekistan |
| 2020s | 3.73 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 0.2654 1=low to 6=high | Uzbekistan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia building human resources rating, Small states or Uzbekistan?
- Uzbekistan, at 4 1=low to 6=high against 3.73 1=low to 6=high in Small states as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia building human resources rating between Small states and Uzbekistan?
- 0.27 1=low to 6=high, with Uzbekistan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Small states and Uzbekistan?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
- How do Small states and Uzbekistan rank globally for cpia building human resources rating?
- Small states ranks 15th and Uzbekistan ranks 17th of 42 groups.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA building human resources rating (1=low to 6=high). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The CPIA measures the extent to which a country’s policy and institutional framework supports sustainable growth and poverty reduction, and consequently the effective use of development assistance. The outcome of the exercise yields both an overall score and scores for sixteen criteria that compose the CPIA. These criteria include: A. Economic Management (1. Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies; 2. Fiscal Policy; 3. Debt Policy and Management), B. Structural Policies (4. Trade; 5. Financial Sector; 6. Business Regulatory Environment), C. Policies for Social Inclusion/Equity (7. Gender equality; 8. Equity of public resource use; 9. Building human resources; 10. Social protection and labor; 11. Policies and institutions for environmental sustainability), D. Public Sector Management and Institutions (12. Property rights and rule-based governance; 13. Quality of budgetary and financial management; 14. Efficiency of revenue mobilization; 15. Quality of public administration; 16. Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector). The CPIA building human resources criterion assesses the national policies and public and private sector service delivery that affect access to and quality of health and education-related services. The criterion has two components: (a) health, including population and reproductive health, and nutrition as well as the prevention and treatment of communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; and (b) education, training and literacy programs, and early child development (ECD) programs, including both formal and non-formal programs (which may combine education, health, and nutrition interventions) aimed at children aged 0-6.