IDA & IBRD total vs Vietnam: CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating over time
- IDA & IBRD total
- Vietnam
How they compare
Vietnam currently reports 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 2.93 1=low to 6=high in IDA & IBRD total, a difference of 0.57 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Vietnam's figure about 1.2 times IDA & IBRD total's.
Across all 11 years both countries report, Vietnam has been ahead every year.
IDA & IBRD total ranks 18th and Vietnam ranks 16th of 42 groups.
Vietnam has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | IDA & IBRD total | Vietnam | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.25 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 0.7547 1=low to 6=high | Vietnam |
| 2010s | 3.22 1=low to 6=high | 3.67 1=low to 6=high | 0.4435 1=low to 6=high | Vietnam |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating, IDA & IBRD total or Vietnam?
- Vietnam, at 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 2.93 1=low to 6=high in IDA & IBRD total as of 2015.
- What is the difference in cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating between IDA & IBRD total and Vietnam?
- 0.57 1=low to 6=high, with Vietnam ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for IDA & IBRD total and Vietnam?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2015.
- How do IDA & IBRD total and Vietnam rank globally for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating?
- IDA & IBRD total ranks 18th and Vietnam ranks 16th 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.