CPIA equity of public resource use rating in East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income)
East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income): CPIA equity of public resource use rating was 3.32 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▼ Falling
CPIA equity of public resource use rating in East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income), 2005–2025
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income) recorded 3.32 1=low to 6=high for cpia equity of public resource use rating in 2025.
The figure is down 1.3% over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia equity of public resource use rating in East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income) peaked at 3.73 1=low to 6=high in 2010 and was at its lowest, 3.29 1=low to 6=high, in 2016.
East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income) ranks 30th of 42 groups 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 in East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income), year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 3.38 1=low to 6=high | -3.6% |
| 2007 | 3.41 1=low to 6=high | +1.0% |
| 2008 | 3.41 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 3.59 1=low to 6=high | +5.3% |
| 2010 | 3.73 1=low to 6=high | +3.8% |
| 2011 | 3.54 1=low to 6=high | -5.1% |
| 2012 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | -1.1% |
| 2013 | 3.4 1=low to 6=high | -2.9% |
| 2014 | 3.4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 3.37 1=low to 6=high | -1.0% |
| 2016 | 3.29 1=low to 6=high | -2.4% |
| 2017 | 3.29 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 3.32 1=low to 6=high | +1.1% |
| 2019 | 3.29 1=low to 6=high | -1.1% |
| 2020 | 3.29 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2021 | 3.39 1=low to 6=high | +3.3% |
| 2022 | 3.36 1=low to 6=high | -1.1% |
| 2023 | 3.32 1=low to 6=high | -1.1% |
| 2024 | 3.32 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2025 | 3.32 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.46 1=low to 6=high | 3.38 1=low to 6=high | 3.59 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 3.41 1=low to 6=high | 3.29 1=low to 6=high | 3.73 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 3.33 1=low to 6=high | 3.29 1=low to 6=high | 3.39 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income)
- 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 Cape Verde 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 30 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 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 Republic of 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 East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income)
- Arms imports 872.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 0.4073 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per unit of GDP 0 SIPRI trend indicator values per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), annual growth rate -41.87 % change on previous year (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), gaps filled 872.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per capita 161.96 current USD per person (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per unit of GDP 0.0156 current USD per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), annual growth rate 6.25 % change on previous year (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), gaps filled 346.78 billion current USD (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per square kilometre 93.74 SIPRI trend indicator values per square kilometre (2023)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia equity of public resource use rating in East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income)?
- Cpia equity of public resource use rating in East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income) was 3.32 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 East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income)?
- The highest recorded value was 3.73 1=low to 6=high in 2010.
- What is the lowest cpia equity of public resource use rating recorded in East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income)?
- The lowest recorded value was 3.29 1=low to 6=high in 2016.
- How does East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income) rank for cpia equity of public resource use rating?
- East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income) ranks 30th out of 42 groups with data for 2025.
- Is cpia equity of public resource use rating rising or falling in East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income)?
- Over the last ten years it is down 1.3%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income) 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.