East Asia & Pacific vs Maldives: CPIA structural policies cluster average
CPIA structural policies cluster average over time
- East Asia & Pacific
- Maldives
How they compare
Maldives currently reports 3.33 1=low to 6=high against 3.1 1=low to 6=high in East Asia & Pacific, a difference of 0.23 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Maldives's figure about 1.1 times East Asia & Pacific's.
Across all 21 years both countries report, Maldives has been ahead every year.
East Asia & Pacific ranks 30th and Maldives ranks 34th of 42 groups.
Maldives has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | East Asia & Pacific | Maldives | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.25 1=low to 6=high | 3.89 1=low to 6=high | 0.6474 1=low to 6=high | Maldives |
| 2010s | 3.2 1=low to 6=high | 3.58 1=low to 6=high | 0.3818 1=low to 6=high | Maldives |
| 2020s | 3.08 1=low to 6=high | 3.47 1=low to 6=high | 0.3929 1=low to 6=high | Maldives |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia structural policies cluster average, East Asia & Pacific or Maldives?
- Maldives, at 3.33 1=low to 6=high against 3.1 1=low to 6=high in East Asia & Pacific as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia structural policies cluster average between East Asia & Pacific and Maldives?
- 0.23 1=low to 6=high, with Maldives ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for East Asia & Pacific and Maldives?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
- How do East Asia & Pacific and Maldives rank globally for cpia structural policies cluster average?
- East Asia & Pacific ranks 30th and Maldives ranks 34th of 42 groups.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA structural policies cluster average (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 Structural Policies cluster includes trade, financial sector, and business regulatory environment.