Armenia vs Cape Verde: CPIA social protection rating
CPIA social protection rating over time
- Armenia
- Cape Verde
How they compare
Armenia currently reports 4 1=low to 6=high against 4 1=low to 6=high in Cape Verde, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Cape Verde has been ahead every year.
Armenia ranks 1st and Cape Verde ranks 1st of 85 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Armenia | Cape Verde | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 0 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2010s | 4.25 1=low to 6=high | 4.25 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 social protection rating, Armenia or Cape Verde?
- Armenia, at 4 1=low to 6=high against 4 1=low to 6=high in Cape Verde as of 2013.
- What is the difference in cpia social protection rating between Armenia and Cape Verde?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Armenia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Armenia and Cape Verde?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Armenia and Cape Verde rank globally for cpia social protection rating?
- Armenia ranks 1st and Cape Verde ranks 1st of 85 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA social protection 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 Social Protection criterion assesses government policies in social protection and labor market regulations that reduce the risk of becoming poor, assist those who are poor to better manage further risks, and ensure a minimal level of welfare to all people. Specifically it evaluates social protection (SP) and labor policies, namely those engaged in risk prevention by supporting savings and risk pooling through social insurance, protection against destitution through redistributive safety net programs and promotion of human capital development and income generation, including labor market programs. It also assesses the functioning of an SP system, including its effectiveness in a crisis and in providing arrangements and incentives to help beneficiaries to move from protection to promotion and prevention, including through interactions with private, informal means of SP. The criterion covers: (a) the overall SP system; (b) social safety net programs; (c) labor markets programs and policies, namely those aiming to promote employment creation and productivity growth while protecting core labor standards and ensuring adequate working conditions; (d) local service delivery and civil society participation in community development programs; and (e) pension and old age savings programs.