CPIA equity of public resource use rating (1=low to 6=high) in Cape Verde
Cape Verde: CPIA equity of public resource use rating (1=low to 6=high) was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▼ Falling
Latest (2025)
3.5 1=low to 6=high
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
30th
of 85 countries
All-time high
4.5 1=low to 6=high
in 2005
All-time low
3.5 1=low to 6=high
in 2015
Years of data
21
2005–2025
CPIA equity of public resource use rating in Cape Verde, 2005–2025
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
The most recent figure for cpia equity of public resource use rating in Cape Verde is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2025. That is the lowest value across all 21 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia equity of public resource use rating in Cape Verde peaked at 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2005 and was at its lowest, 3.5 1=low to 6=high, in 2015.
Cape Verde ranks 30th of 85 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 21 years of available data.
CPIA equity of public resource use rating (1=low to 6=high) in Cape Verde, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 4 1=low to 6=high | -11.1% |
| 2012 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | -12.5% |
| 2016 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2020 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2021 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2022 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2023 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2024 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2025 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Cape Verde compared with similar countries
- Cape Verde's 3.5 1=low to 6=high is above the median for upper middle income countries, which is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, 1.0× the median. (21 countries reporting)
- Cape Verde's 3.5 1=low to 6=high is above the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, 1.0× the median. (40 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 3.8 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Cape Verde
- 30 Bangladesh 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Burkina Faso 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Burundi 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Democratic Republic of Congo 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Djibouti 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Ethiopia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Gambia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Grenada 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Guinea 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Honduras 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Kosovo 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Liberia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Madagascar 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Maldives 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Moldova 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Nepal 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Nicaragua 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Pakistan 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Sierra Leone 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Saint Lucia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Tajikistan 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Zimbabwe 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Cape Verde
- Democracy, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Chief executive of the government is elected, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Elected parliament, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Men's universal right to vote, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Universal right to vote, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Universal right to vote in practice, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Arms imports 3.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2019)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 5.84 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2019)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per unit of GDP 0.0013 SIPRI trend indicator values per US$ of GDP (2019)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), gaps filled 3.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2019)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia equity of public resource use rating in Cape Verde?
- Cpia equity of public resource use rating in Cape Verde was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
- What is the highest cpia equity of public resource use rating recorded in Cape Verde?
- The highest recorded value was 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- What is the lowest cpia equity of public resource use rating recorded in Cape Verde?
- The lowest recorded value was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2015.
- How does Cape Verde rank for cpia equity of public resource use rating?
- Cape Verde ranks 30th out of 85 countries with data for 2025.
- Is cpia equity of public resource use rating rising or falling in Cape Verde?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Cape Verde data come from?
- The figures come from CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as part of CPIA equity of public resource use rating (1=low to 6=high). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 21 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
Equity of public resource use assesses the extent to which the pattern of public expenditures and revenue collection affects the poor and is consistent with national poverty reduction priorities.