Cape Verde vs Samoa: CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public

Cape Verde
4.5 1=low to 6=high
in 2025
Samoa
4 1=low to 6=high
in 2025
Cape Verde rank
1st
Samoa rank
4th

CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public over time

  • Cape Verde
  • Samoa
012345200520152025

How they compare

Cape Verde currently reports 4.5 1=low to 6=high against 4 1=low to 6=high in Samoa, a difference of 0.5 1=low to 6=high.

That makes Cape Verde's figure about 1.1 times Samoa's.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 21 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Cape Verde ahead.

Cape Verde ranks 1st and Samoa ranks 4th of 84 countries.

Cape Verde has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cape Verde Samoa Difference Ahead
2000s 4.5 1=low to 6=high 4 1=low to 6=high 0.5 1=low to 6=high Cape Verde
2010s 4.4 1=low to 6=high 4 1=low to 6=high 0.4 1=low to 6=high Cape Verde
2020s 4.5 1=low to 6=high 4 1=low to 6=high 0.5 1=low to 6=high Cape Verde

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public, Cape Verde or Samoa?
Cape Verde, at 4.5 1=low to 6=high against 4 1=low to 6=high in Samoa as of 2025.
What is the difference in cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public between Cape Verde and Samoa?
0.5 1=low to 6=high, with Cape Verde ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cape Verde and Samoa?
21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
How do Cape Verde and Samoa rank globally for cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public?
Cape Verde ranks 1st and Samoa ranks 4th of 84 countries.
Where does this data come from?
CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (1=low to 6=high). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Cape Verde vs Samoa: CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public. Statizoid, drawing on CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Retrieved 03 September 2026, from https://public-sector.statizoid.com/compare/cpia-transparency-accountability-and-corruption-in-the-public-sector-rating-1-low-to-6/cabo-verde/samoa/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://public-sector.statizoid.com/compare/cpia-transparency-accountability-and-corruption-in-the-public-sector-rating-1-low-to-6/cabo-verde/samoa/">Cape Verde vs Samoa: CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (1=low to 6=high)
Unit
1=low to 6=high
Source
CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG)
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
126 places, 2,443 data points, 2005–2025
Last refreshed

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 Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector criterion assesses the extent to which the executive, legislators, and other high-level officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and results obtained. Accountability is generally enhanced by transparency in decision-making, access to relevant and timely information, public and media scrutiny, and by institutional checks (e.g., inspector general, ombudsman, or independent audit) on the authority of the chief executive. The criterion covers four dimensions: (a) the accountability of the executive and other top officials to effective oversight institutions; (b) access of civil society to timely and reliable information on public affairs and public policies, including fiscal information (on public expenditures, revenues, and large contract awards); (c) state capture by narrow vested interests; and (d) integrity in the management of public resources, including aid and natural resource revenues.