CPIA debt policy rating (1=low to 6=high) by country

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...

Countries reporting
85
Highest
5 1=low to 6=high
Georgia
Lowest
1 1=low to 6=high
Sudan
Median
3 1=low to 6=high
Years covered
21
2005–2025
Data points
2,460

What the numbers show

CPIA debt policy rating (1=low to 6=high) is currently reported for 85 countries. The highest value is 5 1=low to 6=high in Georgia; the lowest is 1 1=low to 6=high in Sudan.

The median across all reporting countries is 3 1=low to 6=high, and the mean is 3.26 1=low to 6=high.

The gap between the highest and lowest reporting country is a factor of about 5.

Over the past decade 28 countries rose and 33 fell. The largest increase was in Togo (up 100.0%), and the largest decrease in Afghanistan (down 50.0%).

CPIA debt policy rating: full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 Georgia 5 1=low to 6=high 2013 up 25.0% rising
1 Kosovo 5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 11.1% rising
1 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 11.1% rising
4 Azerbaijan 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2010 unchanged flat
4 Burkina Faso 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 12.5% flat
4 Bolivia 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2015 up 12.5% rising
4 Cote d'Ivoire 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 28.6% rising
4 Guyana 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 12.5% falling
4 Kyrgyzstan 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 12.5% rising
4 Cambodia 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
4 Madagascar 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
4 Rwanda 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 12.5% rising
4 Uzbekistan 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 12.5% rising
14 Armenia 4 1=low to 6=high 2013 down 27.3% falling
14 Benin 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
14 Bangladesh 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 1=low to 6=high 2013 unchanged flat
14 Bhutan 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
14 Fiji 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 14.3% rising
14 Honduras 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 14.3% flat
14 India 4 1=low to 6=high 2013 down 11.1% falling
14 Moldova 4 1=low to 6=high 2019 unchanged rising
14 Mali 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
14 Nigeria 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 11.1% falling
14 Nepal 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 14.3% rising
14 Togo 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 100.0% rising
14 Tanzania 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
14 Uganda 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 11.1% falling
14 Samoa 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 14.3% falling
30 Burundi 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 40.0% flat
30 Cameroon 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
30 Democratic Republic of Congo 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
30 Guinea 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 16.7% rising
30 Grenada 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 40.0% rising
30 Lesotho 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
30 Mauritania 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 16.7% falling
30 Nicaragua 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 22.2% falling
30 Pakistan 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
30 Solomon Islands 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
30 Chad 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
30 East Timor 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 22.2% falling
30 Vietnam 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2015 down 12.5% falling
43 Angola 3 1=low to 6=high 2013 up 50.0% rising
43 Central African Republic 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
43 Cape Verde 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
43 Dominica 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
43 Micronesia (country) 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 20.0% rising
43 Ghana 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
43 Gambia 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 20.0% falling
43 Kenya 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 33.3% falling
43 Liberia 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
43 Saint Lucia 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 20.0% falling
43 Sri Lanka 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
43 Myanmar 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 25.0% falling
43 Mongolia 3 1=low to 6=high 2019 unchanged falling
43 Papua New Guinea 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
43 Sierra Leone 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
43 Tajikistan 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
43 Tonga 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% flat
43 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
43 Vanuatu 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 25.0% falling
43 Zambia 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
63 Comoros 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 16.7% rising
63 Ethiopia 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 37.5% falling
63 Guinea-Bissau 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
63 Kiribati 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 25.0% falling
63 Marshall Islands 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 25.0% rising
63 Niger 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 37.5% falling
63 Senegal 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 44.4% falling
63 Somalia 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 66.7% rising
63 Zimbabwe 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 25.0% rising
72 Congo 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 42.9% falling
72 Djibouti 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 20.0% falling
72 Haiti 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 33.3% falling
72 Laos 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 33.3% falling
72 Maldives 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 20.0% falling
72 Mozambique 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 42.9% falling
72 Malawi 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 33.3% falling
72 Sao Tome and Principe 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 20.0% falling
72 Tuvalu 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
81 Afghanistan 1.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 50.0% falling
81 Eritrea 1.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 50.0% falling
81 South Sudan 1.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
81 Yemen 1.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 50.0% falling
85 Sudan 1 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 33.3% falling

Regions and income groups

Aggregates are excluded from the country ranking above so that a region can never outrank a country.

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

CPIA debt policy rating by country. Statizoid, drawing on CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://public-sector.statizoid.com/stat/cpia-debt-policy-rating-1-low-to-6-high/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://public-sector.statizoid.com/stat/cpia-debt-policy-rating-1-low-to-6-high/">CPIA debt policy rating by country</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
CPIA debt policy rating (1=low to 6=high)
Unit
1=low to 6=high
Source
CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG)
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
127 places, 2,460 data points, 2005–2025
Last refreshed

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 Debt Policy and Management criterion assesses whether the country’s debt management strategy is conducive to ensure medium-term debt sustainability and minimize budgetary risks. The criterion covers: (a) the extent to which external and domestic debt is contracted with a view to achieving/maintaining debt sustainability; and (b) the effectiveness of debt management functions (including the degree of coordination between debt management and other macroeconomic policies, the effectiveness of the debt management unit, and the existence of a debt management strategy and of a legal framework for borrowing).