Malawi vs Papua New Guinea: CPIA macroeconomic management rating
CPIA macroeconomic management rating over time
- Malawi
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 2.5 1=low to 6=high against 2 1=low to 6=high in Malawi, a difference of 0.5 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Papua New Guinea's figure about 1.2 times Malawi's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 21 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Papua New Guinea ahead.
Malawi ranks 78th and Papua New Guinea ranks 75th of 85 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Malawi averaged higher in 1 and Papua New Guinea in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Malawi | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.3 1=low to 6=high | 4.1 1=low to 6=high | 0.8 1=low to 6=high | Papua New Guinea |
| 2010s | 3.1 1=low to 6=high | 3.6 1=low to 6=high | 0.5 1=low to 6=high | Papua New Guinea |
| 2020s | 2.83 1=low to 6=high | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | 0.3333 1=low to 6=high | Malawi |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia macroeconomic management rating, Malawi or Papua New Guinea?
- Papua New Guinea, at 2.5 1=low to 6=high against 2 1=low to 6=high in Malawi as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia macroeconomic management rating between Malawi and Papua New Guinea?
- 0.5 1=low to 6=high, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Malawi and Papua New Guinea?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
- How do Malawi and Papua New Guinea rank globally for cpia macroeconomic management rating?
- Malawi ranks 78th and Papua New Guinea ranks 75th of 85 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA macroeconomic management 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 macroeconomic management cluster assesses the monetary, exchange rate, and fiscal policy, as well as debt policy and management.