Azerbaijan vs High income: CPIA fiscal policy rating
CPIA fiscal policy rating over time
- Azerbaijan
- High income
How they compare
Azerbaijan currently reports 4.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in High income, a difference of 1 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Azerbaijan's figure about 1.3 times High income's.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Azerbaijan has been ahead every year.
Azerbaijan ranks 2nd and High income ranks 4th of 85 countries.
Azerbaijan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Azerbaijan | High income | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.4 1=low to 6=high | 1.1 1=low to 6=high | Azerbaijan |
| 2010s | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 1 1=low to 6=high | Azerbaijan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia fiscal policy rating, Azerbaijan or High income?
- Azerbaijan, at 4.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in High income as of 2010.
- What is the difference in cpia fiscal policy rating between Azerbaijan and High income?
- 1 1=low to 6=high, with Azerbaijan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Azerbaijan and High income?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2010.
- How do Azerbaijan and High income rank globally for cpia fiscal policy rating?
- Azerbaijan ranks 2nd and High income ranks 4th of 85 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA fiscal policy 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 CPIA fiscal policy criterion assesses the quality of the fiscal policy in its stabilization and allocation functions. The stabilization function deals with achieving macroeconomic policy objectives in conjunction with coherent monetary and exchange rate policies—smoothing business cycle fluctuations, accommodating shocks. The allocation function is concerned with the appropriate provision of public goods. The criterion pays attention to public expenditure composition, including, for example, the provision of public infrastructure and agriculture related public goods and services that support medium-term growth.