Mongolia vs South Sudan: CPIA financial sector rating
CPIA financial sector rating over time
- Mongolia
- South Sudan
How they compare
Mongolia currently reports 2 1=low to 6=high against 2 1=low to 6=high in South Sudan, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 8 shared years of data; in 2012 it was South Sudan ahead.
Mongolia ranks 68th and South Sudan ranks 68th of 84 countries.
Mongolia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia financial sector rating, Mongolia or South Sudan?
- Mongolia, at 2 1=low to 6=high against 2 1=low to 6=high in South Sudan as of 2019.
- What is the difference in cpia financial sector rating between Mongolia and South Sudan?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Mongolia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mongolia and South Sudan?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2012 to 2019.
- How do Mongolia and South Sudan rank globally for cpia financial sector rating?
- Mongolia ranks 68th and South Sudan 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.