Papua New Guinea vs Vanuatu: CPIA structural policies cluster average
CPIA structural policies cluster average over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Vanuatu
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 3.33 1=low to 6=high against 3.33 1=low to 6=high in Vanuatu, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 21 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Vanuatu ahead.
Papua New Guinea ranks 33rd and Vanuatu ranks 33rd of 84 countries.
Papua New Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Vanuatu | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.43 1=low to 6=high | 3.27 1=low to 6=high | 0.16 1=low to 6=high | Papua New Guinea |
| 2010s | 3.53 1=low to 6=high | 3.32 1=low to 6=high | 0.2167 1=low to 6=high | Papua New Guinea |
| 2020s | 3.33 1=low to 6=high | 3.33 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 structural policies cluster average, Papua New Guinea or Vanuatu?
- Papua New Guinea, at 3.33 1=low to 6=high against 3.33 1=low to 6=high in Vanuatu as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia structural policies cluster average between Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu rank globally for cpia structural policies cluster average?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 33rd and Vanuatu ranks 33rd of 84 countries.
- 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.