Bolivia, Plurinational State of vs Niger: CPIA quality of public administration rating
CPIA quality of public administration rating over time
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of
- Niger
How they compare
Bolivia, Plurinational State of currently reports 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Niger, 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 28th and Niger ranks 28th of 85 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 | Niger | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.1 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 0.1 1=low to 6=high | Bolivia, Plurinational State of |
| 2010s | 3 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 0 1=low to 6=high | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia quality of public administration rating, Bolivia, Plurinational State of or Niger?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of, at 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Niger as of 2015.
- What is the difference in cpia quality of public administration rating between Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Niger?
- 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 Niger?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2015.
- How do Bolivia, Plurinational State of and Niger rank globally for cpia quality of public administration rating?
- Bolivia, Plurinational State of ranks 28th and Niger ranks 28th of 85 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA quality of public administration 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 Quality of Public Administration criterion covers the core administration defined as the civilian central government (and subnational governments, to the extent that their size or policy responsibilities are significant) excluding health and education personnel, and police. The criterion assesses the functioning of the core administration in three areas: (a) managing its own operations; (b) ensuring quality in policy implementation and regulatory management; and (c) coordinating the larger public sector Human Resources Management regime outside the core administration (de-concentrated and arms-length bodies and subsidiary governments).