CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average (1=low) in Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan: CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average (1=low) was 3.1 1=low to 6=high in 2010. ▬ Flat

Latest (2010)
3.1 1=low to 6=high
Change on year
down 3.1%
World rank
36th
of 85 countries
All-time high
3.2 1=low to 6=high
in 2005
All-time low
3.1 1=low to 6=high
in 2010
Years of data
6
2005–2010

CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average in Azerbaijan, 2005–2010

01232005200720102005: 3.2 1=low to 6=high2006: 3.2 1=low to 6=high2007: 3.2 1=low to 6=high2008: 3.2 1=low to 6=high2009: 3.2 1=low to 6=high2010: 3.1 1=low to 6=high

Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.

Analysis

The most recent figure for cpia public sector management and institutions cluster average in Azerbaijan is 3.1 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2010. That is the lowest value across all 6 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is down 3.1% on the previous year and down 3.1% over ten years.

Azerbaijan ranks 36th of 85 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average (1=low) in Azerbaijan, year by year

Annual values for CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average (1=low to 6=high) in Azerbaijan, 2005 to 2010.
Year 1=low to 6=high Change
2005 3.2 1=low to 6=high —
2006 3.2 1=low to 6=high +0.0%
2007 3.2 1=low to 6=high +0.0%
2008 3.2 1=low to 6=high +0.0%
2009 3.2 1=low to 6=high +0.0%
2010 3.1 1=low to 6=high -3.1%

Azerbaijan compared with similar countries

  • Azerbaijan's 3.1 1=low to 6=high is below the median for upper middle income countries, which is 3.4 1=low to 6=high, 91% of the median. (21 countries reporting)
  • Azerbaijan's 3.1 1=low to 6=high is below the median for Europe & Central Asia, which is 3.3 1=low to 6=high, 94% of the median. (9 countries reporting)

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
2000s 3.2 1=low to 6=high 3.2 1=low to 6=high 3.2 1=low to 6=high 5
2010s 3.1 1=low to 6=high 3.1 1=low to 6=high 3.1 1=low to 6=high 1

Countries ranked near Azerbaijan

  1. 36 Bolivia 3.1 1=low to 6=high compare
  2. 36 Ethiopia 3.1 1=low to 6=high compare
  3. 36 Kiribati 3.1 1=low to 6=high compare
  4. 36 Kyrgyzstan 3.1 1=low to 6=high compare
  5. 36 Maldives 3.1 1=low to 6=high compare
  6. 36 Tajikistan 3.1 1=low to 6=high compare
  7. 36 Vanuatu 3.1 1=low to 6=high compare

See the full ranking of 127 places →

More climate change data for Azerbaijan

All data for Azerbaijan →

Frequently asked questions

What is cpia public sector management and institutions cluster average in Azerbaijan?
Cpia public sector management and institutions cluster average in Azerbaijan was 3.1 1=low to 6=high in 2010, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
What is the highest cpia public sector management and institutions cluster average recorded in Azerbaijan?
The highest recorded value was 3.2 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
What is the lowest cpia public sector management and institutions cluster average recorded in Azerbaijan?
The lowest recorded value was 3.1 1=low to 6=high in 2010.
How does Azerbaijan rank for cpia public sector management and institutions cluster average?
Azerbaijan ranks 36th out of 85 countries with data for 2010.
Is cpia public sector management and institutions cluster average rising or falling in Azerbaijan?
Over the last ten years it is down 3.1%. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Azerbaijan data come from?
The figures come from CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as part of CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average (1=low to 6=high). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 6 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average in Azerbaijan. Statizoid, drawing on CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Retrieved 06 November 2026, from https://climate.statizoid.com/stat/cpia-public-sector-management-and-institutions-cluster-average-1-low-to-6-high/azerbaijan/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://climate.statizoid.com/stat/cpia-public-sector-management-and-institutions-cluster-average-1-low-to-6-high/azerbaijan/">CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average in Azerbaijan</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average (1=low to 6=high)
Unit
1=low to 6=high
Source
CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG)
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
127 places, 2,460 data points, 2005–2025
Last refreshed

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 Public Sector Management and Institutions cluster includes property rights and rule-based governance, quality of budgetary and financial management, efficiency of revenue mobilization, quality of public administration, and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector.