Micronesia, Federated States of vs Sudan: CPIA business regulatory environment rating
CPIA business regulatory environment rating over time
- Micronesia, Federated States of
- Sudan
How they compare
Micronesia, Federated States of currently reports 2 1=low to 6=high against 2 1=low to 6=high in Sudan, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Sudan has been ahead every year.
Micronesia, Federated States of ranks 74th and Sudan ranks 74th of 85 countries.
Sudan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Micronesia, Federated States of | Sudan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 2 1=low to 6=high | 2.83 1=low to 6=high | 0.8333 1=low to 6=high | Sudan |
| 2020s | 2 1=low to 6=high | 2.25 1=low to 6=high | 0.25 1=low to 6=high | Sudan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia business regulatory environment rating, Micronesia, Federated States of or Sudan?
- Micronesia, Federated States of, at 2 1=low to 6=high against 2 1=low to 6=high in Sudan as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia business regulatory environment rating between Micronesia, Federated States of and Sudan?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Micronesia, Federated States of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Micronesia, Federated States of and Sudan?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2011 to 2025.
- How do Micronesia, Federated States of and Sudan rank globally for cpia business regulatory environment rating?
- Micronesia, Federated States of ranks 74th and Sudan ranks 74th of 85 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA business regulatory environment 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). This Business Regulatory Environment criterion assesses the extent to which the legal, regulatory, and policy environment helps or hinders private business in investing, creating jobs, and becoming more productive. The emphasis is on direct regulations of business activity and regulation of goods and factor markets. Three sub-components are measured: (a) regulations affecting entry, exit, and competition; (b) regulations of ongoing business operations; and (c) regulations of factor markets (labor and land).