Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) vs Nepal: CPIA property rights and rule-based governance rating
CPIA property rights and rule-based governance rating over time
- Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC)
- Nepal
How they compare
Nepal currently reports 3 1=low to 6=high against 2.59 1=low to 6=high in Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC), a difference of 0.41 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Nepal's figure about 1.2 times Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC)'s.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 21 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) ahead.
Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) ranks 34th and Nepal ranks 32nd of 42 groups.
Across the 3 decades both report, Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) averaged higher in 1 and Nepal in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) | Nepal | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.76 1=low to 6=high | 2.7 1=low to 6=high | 0.0597 1=low to 6=high | Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) |
| 2010s | 2.72 1=low to 6=high | 2.9 1=low to 6=high | 0.1816 1=low to 6=high | Nepal |
| 2020s | 2.64 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 0.3631 1=low to 6=high | Nepal |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia property rights and rule-based governance rating, Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) or Nepal?
- Nepal, at 3 1=low to 6=high against 2.59 1=low to 6=high in Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia property rights and rule-based governance rating between Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) and Nepal?
- 0.41 1=low to 6=high, with Nepal ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) and Nepal?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
- How do Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) and Nepal rank globally for cpia property rights and rule-based governance rating?
- Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) ranks 34th and Nepal ranks 32nd of 42 groups.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA property rights and rule-based governance 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). The Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance criterion assesses the extent to which economic activity is facilitated by an effective legal system and rule-based governance structure in which property and contract rights are reliably respected and enforced. It encompasses three dimensions: (a) legal framework for secure property and contract rights, including predictability and impartiality of laws and regulations; (b) quality of the legal and judicial system, as measured by independence, accessibility, legitimacy, efficiency, transparency, and integrity of the courts and other relevant dispute resolution mechanisms; and (c) crime and violence as an impediment to economic activity and citizen security.