Upper middle income vs Zimbabwe: CPIA policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating
CPIA policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating over time
- Upper middle income
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Zimbabwe currently reports 4 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Upper middle income, a difference of 0.5 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Zimbabwe's figure about 1.1 times Upper middle income's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 21 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Upper middle income ahead.
Upper middle income ranks 3rd and Zimbabwe ranks 3rd of 42 groups.
Across the 3 decades both report, Upper middle income averaged higher in 2 and Zimbabwe in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Upper middle income | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.41 1=low to 6=high | 2.3 1=low to 6=high | 1.11 1=low to 6=high | Upper middle income |
| 2010s | 3.35 1=low to 6=high | 3.35 1=low to 6=high | 0.0046 1=low to 6=high | Upper middle income |
| 2020s | 3.47 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 0.5299 1=low to 6=high | Zimbabwe |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating, Upper middle income or Zimbabwe?
- Zimbabwe, at 4 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Upper middle income as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating between Upper middle income and Zimbabwe?
- 0.5 1=low to 6=high, with Zimbabwe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Upper middle income and Zimbabwe?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
- How do Upper middle income and Zimbabwe rank globally for cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating?
- Upper middle income ranks 3rd and Zimbabwe ranks 3rd of 42 groups.
- 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.