Timor-Leste vs Tuvalu: CPIA social protection rating
CPIA social protection rating over time
- Timor-Leste
- Tuvalu
How they compare
Timor-Leste currently reports 2.5 1=low to 6=high against 2.5 1=low to 6=high in Tuvalu, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
Across all 14 years both countries report, Tuvalu has been ahead every year.
Timor-Leste ranks 66th and Tuvalu ranks 66th of 85 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Timor-Leste | Tuvalu | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | 0 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2020s | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | 2.5 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, Timor-Leste or Tuvalu?
- Timor-Leste, at 2.5 1=low to 6=high against 2.5 1=low to 6=high in Tuvalu as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia social protection rating between Timor-Leste and Tuvalu?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Timor-Leste ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Timor-Leste and Tuvalu?
- 14 years are reported by both, from 2012 to 2025.
- How do Timor-Leste and Tuvalu rank globally for cpia social protection rating?
- Timor-Leste ranks 66th and Tuvalu ranks 66th 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.