Mongolia vs Myanmar: CPIA debt policy rating
CPIA debt policy rating over time
- Mongolia
- Myanmar
How they compare
Mongolia currently reports 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Myanmar, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
Across all 7 years both countries report, Myanmar has been ahead every year.
Mongolia ranks 42nd and Myanmar ranks 42nd of 84 countries.
Myanmar has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia debt policy rating, Mongolia or Myanmar?
- Mongolia, at 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Myanmar as of 2019.
- What is the difference in cpia debt policy rating between Mongolia and Myanmar?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Mongolia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mongolia and Myanmar?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2019.
- How do Mongolia and Myanmar rank globally for cpia debt policy rating?
- Mongolia ranks 42nd and Myanmar ranks 42nd of 84 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA debt policy rating (1=low to 6=high). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
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 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).