CPIA social protection rating in Pacific island small states
Pacific island small states: CPIA social protection rating was 2.83 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▬ Flat
CPIA social protection rating in Pacific island small states, 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 Pacific island small states is 2.83 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2025.
The figure is up 7.9% over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia social protection rating in Pacific island small states peaked at 3 1=low to 6=high in 2006 and was at its lowest, 2.62 1=low to 6=high, in 2012.
That places Pacific island small states 34th out of 42 groups with data for 2025, putting it in the bottom quarter.
CPIA social protection rating in Pacific island small states, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 2.8 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +7.1% |
| 2007 | 2.8 1=low to 6=high | -6.7% |
| 2008 | 2.9 1=low to 6=high | +3.6% |
| 2009 | 2.8 1=low to 6=high | -3.4% |
| 2010 | 2.9 1=low to 6=high | +3.6% |
| 2011 | 2.64 1=low to 6=high | -8.9% |
| 2012 | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | -0.7% |
| 2013 | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2020 | 2.78 1=low to 6=high | +5.8% |
| 2021 | 2.78 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2022 | 2.78 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2023 | 2.83 1=low to 6=high | +2.0% |
| 2024 | 2.83 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2025 | 2.83 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.86 1=low to 6=high | 2.8 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 2.65 1=low to 6=high | 2.62 1=low to 6=high | 2.9 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 2.81 1=low to 6=high | 2.78 1=low to 6=high | 2.83 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
More public sector data for Pacific island small states
- Tax revenue 20.9% (2023)
- Net investment in nonfinancial assets 4.0% (2023)
- Net lending (+) / net borrowing (-) -1.8% (2023)
- Net incurrence of liabilities, total 3.0% (2023)
- Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments 8.8% (2025)
- Internally displaced persons, new displacement associated with 76,359 number of cases (2023)
- Net acquisition of financial assets 0.5% (2023)
- CPIA business regulatory environment rating 2.78 1=low to 6=high (2025)
- CPIA debt policy rating 3.06 1=low to 6=high (2025)
- CPIA economic management cluster average 3.13 1=low to 6=high (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia social protection rating in Pacific island small states?
- Cpia social protection rating in Pacific island small states was 2.83 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 Pacific island small states?
- The highest recorded value was 3 1=low to 6=high in 2006.
- What is the lowest cpia social protection rating recorded in Pacific island small states?
- The lowest recorded value was 2.62 1=low to 6=high in 2012.
- How does Pacific island small states rank for cpia social protection rating?
- Pacific island small states ranks 34th out of 42 groups with data for 2025.
- Is cpia social protection rating rising or falling in Pacific island small states?
- Over the last ten years it is up 7.9%. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Pacific island small states 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.