Cameroon vs Republic of Moldova: CPIA quality of public administration rating
CPIA quality of public administration rating over time
- Cameroon
- Republic of Moldova
How they compare
Cameroon currently reports 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Republic of Moldova, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Republic of Moldova has been ahead every year.
Cameroon ranks 28th and Republic of Moldova ranks 28th of 85 countries.
Republic of Moldova has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cameroon | Republic of Moldova | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3 1=low to 6=high | 3.1 1=low to 6=high | 0.1 1=low to 6=high | Republic of Moldova |
| 2010s | 3 1=low to 6=high | 3.3 1=low to 6=high | 0.3 1=low to 6=high | Republic of Moldova |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia quality of public administration rating, Cameroon or Republic of Moldova?
- Cameroon, at 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Republic of Moldova as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia quality of public administration rating between Cameroon and Republic of Moldova?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Cameroon ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cameroon and Republic of Moldova?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Cameroon and Republic of Moldova rank globally for cpia quality of public administration rating?
- Cameroon ranks 28th and Republic of Moldova 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).