CPIA social protection rating in IBRD only
IBRD only: CPIA social protection rating was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2019. ▬ Flat
CPIA social protection rating in IBRD only, 2005–2019
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
In 2019, cpia social protection rating in IBRD only stood at 3.5 1=low to 6=high. That is the lowest value across all 15 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is down 5.4% over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia social protection rating in IBRD only peaked at 3.7 1=low to 6=high in 2009 and was at its lowest, 3.5 1=low to 6=high, in 2005.
That places IBRD only 1st out of 42 groups with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.
CPIA social protection rating in IBRD only, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 3.61 1=low to 6=high | +3.2% |
| 2008 | 3.65 1=low to 6=high | +1.1% |
| 2009 | 3.7 1=low to 6=high | +1.4% |
| 2010 | 3.65 1=low to 6=high | -1.4% |
| 2011 | 3.61 1=low to 6=high | -1.1% |
| 2012 | 3.56 1=low to 6=high | -1.5% |
| 2013 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | -1.6% |
| 2014 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 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% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.59 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.7 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 3.53 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.65 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
Countries ranked near IBRD only
- 1 Armenia 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Azerbaijan 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Cape Verde 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Georgia 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Grenada 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Maldives 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Nigeria 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Rwanda 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Tanzania, United Republic of 4 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for IBRD only
- Arms imports 11.74 billion SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 2.36 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per unit of GDP 0.0003 SIPRI trend indicator values per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), annual growth rate -10.26 % change on previous year (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), gaps filled 11.74 billion SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per capita 171.58 current USD per person (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per unit of GDP 0.021 current USD per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), annual growth rate 12.21 % change on previous year (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), gaps filled 854.40 billion current USD (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per square kilometre 184.84 SIPRI trend indicator values per square kilometre (2023)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia social protection rating in IBRD only?
- Cpia social protection rating in IBRD only was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2019, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
- What is the highest cpia social protection rating recorded in IBRD only?
- The highest recorded value was 3.7 1=low to 6=high in 2009.
- What is the lowest cpia social protection rating recorded in IBRD only?
- The lowest recorded value was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- How does IBRD only rank for cpia social protection rating?
- IBRD only ranks 1st out of 42 groups with data for 2019.
- Is cpia social protection rating rising or falling in IBRD only?
- Over the last ten years it is down 5.4%. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this IBRD only data come from?
- The figures come from CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as part of CPIA social protection rating (1=low to 6=high). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 15 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
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 Social Protection criterion assesses government policies in social protection and labor market regulations that reduce the risk of becoming poor, assist those who are poor to better manage further risks, and ensure a minimal level of welfare to all people. Specifically it evaluates social protection (SP) and labor policies, namely those engaged in risk prevention by supporting savings and risk pooling through social insurance, protection against destitution through redistributive safety net programs and promotion of human capital development and income generation, including labor market programs. It also assesses the functioning of an SP system, including its effectiveness in a crisis and in providing arrangements and incentives to help beneficiaries to move from protection to promotion and prevention, including through interactions with private, informal means of SP. The criterion covers: (a) the overall SP system; (b) social safety net programs; (c) labor markets programs and policies, namely those aiming to promote employment creation and productivity growth while protecting core labor standards and ensuring adequate working conditions; (d) local service delivery and civil society participation in community development programs; and (e) pension and old age savings programs.