Bolivia, Plurinational State of vs Congo: CPIA fiscal policy rating
CPIA fiscal policy rating over time
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of
- Congo
How they compare
Bolivia, Plurinational State of currently reports 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Congo, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 11 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Bolivia, Plurinational State of ahead.
Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 18th and Congo ranks 18th of 84 countries.
Bolivia, Plurinational State of has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bolivia, Plurinational State of | Congo | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4 1=low to 6=high | 2.6 1=low to 6=high | 1.4 1=low to 6=high | Bolivia, Plurinational State of |
| 2010s | 3.92 1=low to 6=high | 3.42 1=low to 6=high | 0.5 1=low to 6=high | Bolivia, Plurinational State of |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia fiscal policy rating, Bolivia, Plurinational State of or Congo?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of, at 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Congo as of 2015.
- What is the difference in cpia fiscal policy rating between Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Congo?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Bolivia, Plurinational State of ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Congo?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2015.
- How do Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Congo rank globally for cpia fiscal policy rating?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 18th and Congo ranks 18th of 84 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.