Upper middle income vs Uzbekistan: CPIA quality of public administration rating
CPIA quality of public administration rating over time
- Upper middle income
- Uzbekistan
How they compare
Uzbekistan currently reports 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.19 1=low to 6=high in Upper middle income, a difference of 0.31 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Uzbekistan'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 4th and Uzbekistan ranks 6th of 42 groups.
Across the 3 decades both report, Upper middle income averaged higher in 2 and Uzbekistan in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Upper middle income | Uzbekistan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.46 1=low to 6=high | 2.7 1=low to 6=high | 0.7629 1=low to 6=high | Upper middle income |
| 2010s | 3.27 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 0.2702 1=low to 6=high | Upper middle income |
| 2020s | 3.23 1=low to 6=high | 3.42 1=low to 6=high | 0.1868 1=low to 6=high | Uzbekistan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia quality of public administration rating, Upper middle income or Uzbekistan?
- Uzbekistan, at 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.19 1=low to 6=high in Upper middle income as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia quality of public administration rating between Upper middle income and Uzbekistan?
- 0.31 1=low to 6=high, with Uzbekistan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Upper middle income and Uzbekistan?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
- How do Upper middle income and Uzbekistan rank globally for cpia quality of public administration rating?
- Upper middle income ranks 4th and Uzbekistan ranks 6th of 42 groups.
- 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).