East Asia & Pacific vs Viet Nam: CPIA property rights and rule-based governance rating
CPIA property rights and rule-based governance rating over time
- East Asia & Pacific
- Viet Nam
How they compare
Viet Nam currently reports 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.11 1=low to 6=high in East Asia & Pacific, a difference of 0.39 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Viet Nam's figure about 1.1 times East Asia & Pacific's.
Across all 11 years both countries report, Viet Nam has been ahead every year.
East Asia & Pacific ranks 10th and Viet Nam ranks 9th of 42 groups.
Viet Nam has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | East Asia & Pacific | Viet Nam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.98 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 0.5159 1=low to 6=high | Viet Nam |
| 2010s | 3.13 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 0.373 1=low to 6=high | Viet Nam |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia property rights and rule-based governance rating, East Asia & Pacific or Viet Nam?
- Viet Nam, at 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.11 1=low to 6=high in East Asia & Pacific as of 2015.
- What is the difference in cpia property rights and rule-based governance rating between East Asia & Pacific and Viet Nam?
- 0.39 1=low to 6=high, with Viet Nam ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for East Asia & Pacific and Viet Nam?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2015.
- How do East Asia & Pacific and Viet Nam rank globally for cpia property rights and rule-based governance rating?
- East Asia & Pacific ranks 10th and Viet Nam ranks 9th of 42 groups.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA property rights and rule-based governance 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 Property Rights and Rule-Based Governance criterion assesses the extent to which economic activity is facilitated by an effective legal system and rule-based governance structure in which property and contract rights are reliably respected and enforced. It encompasses three dimensions: (a) legal framework for secure property and contract rights, including predictability and impartiality of laws and regulations; (b) quality of the legal and judicial system, as measured by independence, accessibility, legitimacy, efficiency, transparency, and integrity of the courts and other relevant dispute resolution mechanisms; and (c) crime and violence as an impediment to economic activity and citizen security.