CPIA debt policy rating in East Asia & Pacific

East Asia & Pacific: CPIA debt policy rating was 3.11 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▼ Falling

Latest (2025)
3.11 1=low to 6=high
Change on year
up 1.2%
Rank
23rd
of 42 groups
All-time high
3.82 1=low to 6=high
in 2009
All-time low
3 1=low to 6=high
in 2023
Years of data
21
2005–2025

CPIA debt policy rating in East Asia & Pacific, 2005–2025

012342005201520252005: 3.7 1=low to 6=high2006: 3.7 1=low to 6=high2007: 3.7 1=low to 6=high2008: 3.7 1=low to 6=high2009: 3.8 1=low to 6=high2010: 3.7 1=low to 6=high2011: 3.5 1=low to 6=high2012: 3.4 1=low to 6=high2013: 3.4 1=low to 6=high2014: 3.3 1=low to 6=high2015: 3.3 1=low to 6=high2016: 3.1 1=low to 6=high2017: 3.1 1=low to 6=high2018: 3.2 1=low to 6=high2019: 3.1 1=low to 6=high2020: 3.1 1=low to 6=high2021: 3.1 1=low to 6=high2022: 3.1 1=low to 6=high2023: 3 1=low to 6=high2024: 3.1 1=low to 6=high2025: 3.1 1=low to 6=high

Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.

Analysis

In 2025, cpia debt policy rating in East Asia & Pacific stood at 3.11 1=low to 6=high.

That represents a change of up 1.2% on the previous year and down 4.9% over ten years.

Over the whole period, cpia debt policy rating in East Asia & Pacific peaked at 3.82 1=low to 6=high in 2009 and was at its lowest, 3 1=low to 6=high, in 2023.

East Asia & Pacific ranks 23rd of 42 groups on this measure, in the middle of the range.

The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 21 years of available data.

CPIA debt policy rating in East Asia & Pacific, year by year

Annual values for CPIA debt policy rating (1=low to 6=high) in East Asia & Pacific, 2005 to 2025.
Year 1=low to 6=high Change
2005 3.73 1=low to 6=high
2006 3.71 1=low to 6=high -0.5%
2007 3.68 1=low to 6=high -0.7%
2008 3.73 1=low to 6=high +1.2%
2009 3.82 1=low to 6=high +2.4%
2010 3.73 1=low to 6=high -2.4%
2011 3.54 1=low to 6=high -5.1%
2012 3.36 1=low to 6=high -5.1%
2013 3.37 1=low to 6=high +0.3%
2014 3.3 1=low to 6=high -2.0%
2015 3.27 1=low to 6=high -1.0%
2016 3.14 1=low to 6=high -3.8%
2017 3.14 1=low to 6=high +0.0%
2018 3.18 1=low to 6=high +1.1%
2019 3.14 1=low to 6=high -1.1%
2020 3.14 1=low to 6=high +0.0%
2021 3.11 1=low to 6=high -1.1%
2022 3.11 1=low to 6=high +0.0%
2023 3 1=low to 6=high -3.4%
2024 3.07 1=low to 6=high +2.4%
2025 3.11 1=low to 6=high +1.2%

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
2000s 3.73 1=low to 6=high 3.68 1=low to 6=high 3.82 1=low to 6=high 5
2010s 3.32 1=low to 6=high 3.14 1=low to 6=high 3.73 1=low to 6=high 10
2020s 3.09 1=low to 6=high 3 1=low to 6=high 3.14 1=low to 6=high 6

More public sector data for East Asia & Pacific

All data for East Asia & Pacific →

Frequently asked questions

What is cpia debt policy rating in East Asia & Pacific?
Cpia debt policy rating in East Asia & Pacific was 3.11 1=low to 6=high in 2025, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
What is the highest cpia debt policy rating recorded in East Asia & Pacific?
The highest recorded value was 3.82 1=low to 6=high in 2009.
What is the lowest cpia debt policy rating recorded in East Asia & Pacific?
The lowest recorded value was 3 1=low to 6=high in 2023.
How does East Asia & Pacific rank for cpia debt policy rating?
East Asia & Pacific ranks 23rd out of 42 groups with data for 2025.
Is cpia debt policy rating rising or falling in East Asia & Pacific?
Over the last ten years it is down 4.9%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
Where does this East Asia & Pacific 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 — 21 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

CPIA debt policy rating in East Asia & Pacific. Statizoid, drawing on CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Retrieved 04 September 2026, from https://public-sector.statizoid.com/stat/cpia-debt-policy-rating-1-low-to-6-high/east-asia-and-pacific/

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/east-asia-and-pacific/">CPIA debt policy rating in East Asia & Pacific</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).