Kiribati vs Mongolia: CPIA financial sector rating
CPIA financial sector rating over time
- Kiribati
- Mongolia
How they compare
Kiribati currently reports 2 1=low to 6=high against 2 1=low to 6=high in Mongolia, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Mongolia ahead.
Kiribati ranks 68th and Mongolia ranks 68th of 84 countries.
Kiribati has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kiribati | Mongolia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3 1=low to 6=high | 2.7 1=low to 6=high | 0.3 1=low to 6=high | Kiribati |
| 2010s | 2.6 1=low to 6=high | 2.45 1=low to 6=high | 0.15 1=low to 6=high | Kiribati |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia financial sector rating, Kiribati or Mongolia?
- Kiribati, at 2 1=low to 6=high against 2 1=low to 6=high in Mongolia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia financial sector rating between Kiribati and Mongolia?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Kiribati ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kiribati and Mongolia?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Kiribati and Mongolia rank globally for cpia financial sector rating?
- Kiribati ranks 68th and Mongolia ranks 68th of 84 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA financial sector 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 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 financial sector criterion assesses the policies and regulations that affect financial sector development. Three dimensions are covered: (a) financial stability; (b) the sector’s efficiency, depth, and resource mobilization strength; and (c) access to financial services.