Bolivia vs Pacific island small states: CPIA economic management cluster average (1=low to 6=high)
CPIA economic management cluster average (1=low to 6=high) over time
- Bolivia
- Pacific island small states
How they compare
Bolivia currently reports 3.67 1=low to 6=high against 3.13 1=low to 6=high in Pacific island small states, a difference of 0.54 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Bolivia's figure about 1.2 times Pacific island small states's.
Across all 11 years both countries report, Bolivia has been ahead every year.
Bolivia ranks 25th and Pacific island small states ranks 28th of 85 countries.
Bolivia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bolivia | Pacific island small states | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.14 1=low to 6=high | 3.37 1=low to 6=high | 0.772 1=low to 6=high | Bolivia |
| 2010s | 3.97 1=low to 6=high | 3.17 1=low to 6=high | 0.8008 1=low to 6=high | Bolivia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia economic management cluster average, Bolivia or Pacific island small states?
- Bolivia, at 3.67 1=low to 6=high against 3.13 1=low to 6=high in Pacific island small states as of 2015.
- What is the difference in cpia economic management cluster average between Bolivia and Pacific island small states?
- 0.54 1=low to 6=high, with Bolivia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia and Pacific island small states?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2015.
- How do Bolivia and Pacific island small states rank globally for cpia economic management cluster average?
- Bolivia ranks 25th and Pacific island small states ranks 28th of 85 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA economic management cluster average (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 Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (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 Economic Management cluster includes monetary and exchange rate policies, fiscal policy, and debt policy.