Bolivia vs Papua New Guinea: CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating over time
- Bolivia
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Bolivia currently reports 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Papua New Guinea ahead.
Bolivia ranks 36th and Papua New Guinea ranks 36th of 85 countries.
Bolivia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bolivia | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.4 1=low to 6=high | 0.1 1=low to 6=high | Bolivia |
| 2010s | 3.08 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 0.0833 1=low to 6=high | Bolivia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating, Bolivia or Papua New Guinea?
- Bolivia, at 3 1=low to 6=high against 3 1=low to 6=high in Papua New Guinea as of 2015.
- What is the difference in cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating between Bolivia and Papua New Guinea?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Bolivia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bolivia and Papua New Guinea?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2015.
- How do Bolivia and Papua New Guinea rank globally for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating?
- Bolivia ranks 36th and Papua New Guinea ranks 36th of 85 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management 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 quality of budgetary and financial management criterion assesses the extent to which there is: (a) a comprehensive and credible budget, linked to policy priorities; (b) effective financial management systems to ensure that the budget is implemented as intended in a controlled and predictable way; and (c) timely and accurate accounting and fiscal reporting, including timely audit of public accounts and effective arrangements for follow up.