CPIA debt policy rating (1=low to 6=high) in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina: CPIA debt policy rating (1=low to 6=high) was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2013. ▬ Flat
CPIA debt policy rating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2005–2013
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
In 2013, cpia debt policy rating in Bosnia and Herzegovina stood at 4 1=low to 6=high. That is the highest value across all 9 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia debt policy rating in Bosnia and Herzegovina peaked at 4 1=low to 6=high in 2005 and was at its lowest, 4 1=low to 6=high, in 2005.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 14th of 85 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
CPIA debt policy rating (1=low to 6=high) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 4 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Bosnia and Herzegovina compared with similar countries
- Bosnia and Herzegovina's 4 1=low to 6=high is above the median for upper middle income countries, which is 3 1=low to 6=high, 1.3× the median. (21 countries reporting)
- Bosnia and Herzegovina's 4 1=low to 6=high is below the median for Europe & Central Asia, which is 4.5 1=low to 6=high, 89% of the median. (9 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 |
Countries ranked near Bosnia and Herzegovina
- 14 Armenia 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Bangladesh 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Benin 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Bhutan 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Fiji 4 1=low to 6=high
- 14 Honduras 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 India 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Mali 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Moldova 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Nepal 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Nigeria 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Samoa 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Tanzania 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Togo 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 14 Uganda 4 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Democracy, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Chief executive of the government is elected, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Elected parliament, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Men's universal right to vote, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Universal right to vote, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Universal right to vote in practice, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
- Arms imports 1.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2025)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 3.7 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2021)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per unit of GDP 0.0005 SIPRI trend indicator values per US$ of GDP (2021)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), gaps filled 12.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2021)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia debt policy rating in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- Cpia debt policy rating in Bosnia and Herzegovina was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2013, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
- What is the highest cpia debt policy rating recorded in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- The highest recorded value was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- What is the lowest cpia debt policy rating recorded in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- The lowest recorded value was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- How does Bosnia and Herzegovina rank for cpia debt policy rating?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 14th out of 85 countries with data for 2013.
- Is cpia debt policy rating rising or falling in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Bosnia and Herzegovina data come from?
- The figures come from CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as part of CPIA debt policy rating (1=low to 6=high). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 9 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
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 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).