CPIA social protection rating in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan: CPIA social protection rating was 2.3 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▼ Falling
CPIA social protection rating in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan, 2005–2025
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
The most recent figure for cpia social protection rating in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan is 2.3 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2025. That is the lowest value across all 21 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is down 12.4% on the previous year and down 23.3% over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia social protection rating in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan peaked at 3.33 1=low to 6=high in 2021 and was at its lowest, 2.3 1=low to 6=high, in 2025.
That places Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan 40th out of 42 groups with data for 2025, putting it in the bottom quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 21 years of available data.
CPIA social protection rating in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 3.17 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 2.88 1=low to 6=high | -9.2% |
| 2007 | 2.88 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +4.3% |
| 2009 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 3.25 1=low to 6=high | +8.3% |
| 2011 | 3.25 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 3.25 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 3.12 1=low to 6=high | -3.8% |
| 2014 | 3.12 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 3 1=low to 6=high | -4.0% |
| 2016 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2020 | 3.12 1=low to 6=high | +4.2% |
| 2021 | 3.33 1=low to 6=high | +6.7% |
| 2022 | 2.88 1=low to 6=high | -13.7% |
| 2023 | 2.88 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2024 | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | -8.7% |
| 2025 | 2.3 1=low to 6=high | -12.4% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.98 1=low to 6=high | 2.88 1=low to 6=high | 3.17 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 3.1 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 3.25 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 2.86 1=low to 6=high | 2.3 1=low to 6=high | 3.33 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan
- 42 Bhutan 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Burkina Faso 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Burundi 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Cambodia 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Cameroon 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Chad 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Congo 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Dominica 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Gambia 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Guinea 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Guyana 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Liberia 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Madagascar 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Mali 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Mozambique 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Nepal 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Niger 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Sao Tome and Principe 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Sri Lanka 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Tajikistan 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Tonga 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Uganda 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 42 Zimbabwe 3 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan
- Arms imports 6.14 billion SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 7.55 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per unit of GDP 0.0012 SIPRI trend indicator values per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), annual growth rate -41.52 % change on previous year (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), gaps filled 6.14 billion SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per capita 246.67 current USD per person (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per unit of GDP 0.0393 current USD per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), annual growth rate 15.09 % change on previous year (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), gaps filled 200.58 billion current USD (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per square kilometre 831.08 SIPRI trend indicator values per square kilometre (2023)
All data for Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan →
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia social protection rating in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan?
- Cpia social protection rating in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan was 2.3 1=low to 6=high in 2025, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
- What is the highest cpia social protection rating recorded in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan?
- The highest recorded value was 3.33 1=low to 6=high in 2021.
- What is the lowest cpia social protection rating recorded in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan?
- The lowest recorded value was 2.3 1=low to 6=high in 2025.
- How does Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan rank for cpia social protection rating?
- Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan ranks 40th out of 42 groups with data for 2025.
- Is cpia social protection rating rising or falling in Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan?
- Over the last ten years it is down 23.3%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan 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 — 21 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.