Rwanda vs South Asia (IDA & IBRD): CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating over time
- Rwanda
- South Asia (IDA & IBRD)
How they compare
Rwanda currently reports 4 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in South Asia (IDA & IBRD), a difference of 0.5 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Rwanda's figure about 1.1 times South Asia (IDA & IBRD)'s.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 21 shared years of data; in 2005 it was South Asia (IDA & IBRD) ahead.
Rwanda ranks 6th and South Asia (IDA & IBRD) ranks 5th of 85 countries.
Rwanda has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Rwanda | South Asia (IDA & IBRD) | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.9 1=low to 6=high | 3.47 1=low to 6=high | 0.4333 1=low to 6=high | Rwanda |
| 2010s | 4 1=low to 6=high | 3.23 1=low to 6=high | 0.7742 1=low to 6=high | Rwanda |
| 2020s | 4 1=low to 6=high | 3.36 1=low to 6=high | 0.6375 1=low to 6=high | Rwanda |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating, Rwanda or South Asia (IDA & IBRD)?
- Rwanda, at 4 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in South Asia (IDA & IBRD) as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating between Rwanda and South Asia (IDA & IBRD)?
- 0.5 1=low to 6=high, with Rwanda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Rwanda and South Asia (IDA & IBRD)?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
- How do Rwanda and South Asia (IDA & IBRD) rank globally for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating?
- Rwanda ranks 6th and South Asia (IDA & IBRD) ranks 5th 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.