Lower middle income vs Mongolia: CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public over time
- Lower middle income
- Mongolia
How they compare
Mongolia currently reports 3 1=low to 6=high against 2.76 1=low to 6=high in Lower middle income, a difference of 0.24 1=low to 6=high.
That makes Mongolia's figure about 1.1 times Lower middle income's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Lower middle income ahead.
Lower middle income ranks 24th and Mongolia ranks 25th of 42 groups.
Mongolia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Lower middle income | Mongolia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.78 1=low to 6=high | 2.8 1=low to 6=high | 0.0223 1=low to 6=high | Mongolia |
| 2010s | 2.83 1=low to 6=high | 3.35 1=low to 6=high | 0.5171 1=low to 6=high | Mongolia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public, Lower middle income or Mongolia?
- Mongolia, at 3 1=low to 6=high against 2.76 1=low to 6=high in Lower middle income as of 2019.
- What is the difference in cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public between Lower middle income and Mongolia?
- 0.24 1=low to 6=high, with Mongolia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Lower middle income and Mongolia?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Lower middle income and Mongolia rank globally for cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public?
- Lower middle income ranks 24th and Mongolia ranks 25th of 42 groups.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector 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 Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (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 Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector criterion assesses the extent to which the executive, legislators, and other high-level officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and results obtained. Accountability is generally enhanced by transparency in decision-making, access to relevant and timely information, public and media scrutiny, and by institutional checks (e.g., inspector general, ombudsman, or independent audit) on the authority of the chief executive. The criterion covers four dimensions: (a) the accountability of the executive and other top officials to effective oversight institutions; (b) access of civil society to timely and reliable information on public affairs and public policies, including fiscal information (on public expenditures, revenues, and large contract awards); (c) state capture by narrow vested interests; and (d) integrity in the management of public resources, including aid and natural resource revenues.