Cape Verde vs Congo: Gross public investment
Gross public investment over time
- Cape Verde
- Congo
How they compare
Congo currently reports 15.9% against 14.8% in Cape Verde, a difference of 1.1%.
That makes Congo's figure about 1.1 times Cape Verde's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 27 shared years of data; in 1985 it was Congo ahead.
Cape Verde ranks 7th and Congo ranks 6th of 49 countries.
Cape Verde has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cape Verde | Congo | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980s | 14.0% | 11.1% | 2.9% | Cape Verde |
| 1990s | 18.1% | 3.9% | 14.2% | Cape Verde |
| 2000s | 12.1% | 8.5% | 3.7% | Cape Verde |
| 2010s | 16.8% | 13.0% | 3.8% | Cape Verde |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher gross public investment, Cape Verde or Congo?
- Congo, at 15.9% against 14.8% in Cape Verde as of 2011.
- What is the difference in gross public investment between Cape Verde and Congo?
- 1.1%, with Congo ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cape Verde and Congo?
- 27 years are reported by both, from 1985 to 2011.
- How do Cape Verde and Congo rank globally for gross public investment?
- Cape Verde ranks 7th and Congo ranks 6th of 49 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files, published as Gross public investment (% of GDP). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Gross public investment (see definition below) as a percentage of GDP (%) . Public sectors’ gross domestic fixed investment (gross fixed capital formation) comprises all additions to the stocks of fixed assets (purchases and own-account capital formation), less any sales of second-hand and scrapped fixed assets measured at constant prices, done by government units and non-financial public enterprises. Most outlays by government on military equipment are excluded. According to 1993 SNA are outlays on weapons and equipment with no alternative civil use treated as intermediate consumption, and part of governments consumption expenditure.