Timor-Leste vs Viet Nam: CPIA debt policy rating
CPIA debt policy rating over time
- Timor-Leste
- Viet Nam
How they compare
Timor-Leste currently reports 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Viet Nam, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Viet Nam ahead.
Timor-Leste ranks 30th and Viet Nam ranks 30th of 85 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Timor-Leste averaged higher in 1 and Viet Nam in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Timor-Leste | Viet Nam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 0.5 1=low to 6=high | Viet Nam |
| 2010s | 4.42 1=low to 6=high | 3.92 1=low to 6=high | 0.5 1=low to 6=high | Timor-Leste |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia debt policy rating, Timor-Leste or Viet Nam?
- Timor-Leste, at 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Viet Nam as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia debt policy rating between Timor-Leste and Viet Nam?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Timor-Leste ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Timor-Leste and Viet Nam?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2015.
- How do Timor-Leste and Viet Nam rank globally for cpia debt policy rating?
- Timor-Leste ranks 30th and Viet Nam ranks 30th of 85 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).