IBRD only vs Kosovo: CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating over time
- IBRD only
- Kosovo
How they compare
Kosovo currently reports 4.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.75 1=low to 6=high in IBRD only, a difference of 0.75 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Kosovo's figure about 1.2 times IBRD only's.
Across all 11 years both countries report, Kosovo has been ahead every year.
IBRD only ranks 1st and Kosovo ranks 1st of 42 groups.
Kosovo has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | IBRD only | Kosovo | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.8 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 0.2 1=low to 6=high | Kosovo |
| 2010s | 3.64 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 0.3592 1=low to 6=high | Kosovo |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating, IBRD only or Kosovo?
- Kosovo, at 4.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.75 1=low to 6=high in IBRD only as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating between IBRD only and Kosovo?
- 0.75 1=low to 6=high, with Kosovo ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for IBRD only and Kosovo?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do IBRD only and Kosovo rank globally for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating?
- IBRD only ranks 1st and Kosovo ranks 1st of 42 groups.
- 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.