Low & middle income vs Viet Nam: CPIA financial sector rating
CPIA financial sector rating over time
- Low & middle income
- Viet Nam
How they compare
Viet Nam currently reports 3 1=low to 6=high against 2.81 1=low to 6=high in Low & middle income, a difference of 0.19 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Viet Nam's figure about 1.1 times Low & middle income's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 11 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Low & middle income ahead.
Low & middle income ranks 25th and Viet Nam ranks 28th of 42 groups.
Across the 2 decades both report, Low & middle income averaged higher in 1 and Viet Nam in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Low & middle income | Viet Nam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.12 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 0.1197 1=low to 6=high | Low & middle income |
| 2010s | 2.99 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 0.0124 1=low to 6=high | Viet Nam |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia financial sector rating, Low & middle income or Viet Nam?
- Viet Nam, at 3 1=low to 6=high against 2.81 1=low to 6=high in Low & middle income as of 2015.
- What is the difference in cpia financial sector rating between Low & middle income and Viet Nam?
- 0.19 1=low to 6=high, with Viet Nam ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Low & middle income and Viet Nam?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2015.
- How do Low & middle income and Viet Nam rank globally for cpia financial sector rating?
- Low & middle income ranks 25th and Viet Nam ranks 28th of 42 groups.
- 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.