Congo vs Tuvalu: CPIA debt policy rating

Congo
2 1=low to 6=high
in 2025
Tuvalu
2 1=low to 6=high
in 2025
Congo rank
71st
Tuvalu rank
71st

CPIA debt policy rating over time

  • Congo
  • Tuvalu
01234200520152025

How they compare

Congo currently reports 2 1=low to 6=high against 2 1=low to 6=high in Tuvalu, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 14 shared years of data; in 2012 it was Congo ahead.

Globally, Congo ranks 71st and Tuvalu ranks 71st of 84 countries.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
CPIA debt policy rating (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
126 places, 2,443 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 Debt Policy and Management criterion assesses whether the country’s debt management strategy is conducive to ensure medium-term debt sustainability and minimize budgetary risks. The criterion covers: (a) the extent to which external and domestic debt is contracted with a view to achieving/maintaining debt sustainability; and (b) the effectiveness of debt management functions (including the degree of coordination between debt management and other macroeconomic policies, the effectiveness of the debt management unit, and the existence of a debt management strategy and of a legal framework for borrowing).