Tuvalu vs Zambia: CPIA policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating
CPIA policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating over time
- Tuvalu
- Zambia
How they compare
Tuvalu currently reports 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Zambia, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
Across all 14 years both countries report, Zambia has been ahead every year.
Tuvalu ranks 45th and Zambia ranks 45th of 85 countries.
Zambia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Tuvalu | Zambia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 3 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 0.5 1=low to 6=high | Zambia |
| 2020s | 3 1=low to 6=high | 3.42 1=low to 6=high | 0.4167 1=low to 6=high | Zambia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating, Tuvalu or Zambia?
- Tuvalu, at 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Zambia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating between Tuvalu and Zambia?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Tuvalu ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Tuvalu and Zambia?
- 14 years are reported by both, from 2012 to 2025.
- How do Tuvalu and Zambia rank globally for cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating?
- Tuvalu ranks 45th and Zambia ranks 45th of 85 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA policy and institutions for environmental sustainability 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 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). This criterion assesses the extent to which environmental policies and institutions foster the protection and sustainable use of natural resources and the management of pollution.