Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Ghana: CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating over time
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Ghana
How they compare
Bosnia and Herzegovina currently reports 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Ghana, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Ghana ahead.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 16th and Ghana ranks 16th of 85 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Bosnia and Herzegovina averaged higher in 1 and Ghana in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Ghana | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.8 1=low to 6=high | 0.3 1=low to 6=high | Ghana |
| 2010s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.38 1=low to 6=high | 0.125 1=low to 6=high | Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Ghana?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, at 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Ghana as of 2013.
- What is the difference in cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ghana?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Bosnia and Herzegovina ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ghana?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ghana rank globally for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 16th and Ghana ranks 16th 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.