CPIA fiscal policy rating (1=low to 6=high) in Bhutan
Bhutan: CPIA fiscal policy rating (1=low to 6=high) was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▼ Falling
CPIA fiscal policy rating in Bhutan, 2005–2025
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
The most recent figure for cpia fiscal policy rating in Bhutan is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2025. That is the lowest value across all 21 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia fiscal policy rating in Bhutan peaked at 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2007 and was at its lowest, 3.5 1=low to 6=high, in 2012.
Bhutan ranks 19th of 85 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 21 years of available data.
CPIA fiscal policy rating (1=low to 6=high) in Bhutan, 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 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +12.5% |
| 2008 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 4 1=low to 6=high | -11.1% |
| 2012 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | -12.5% |
| 2013 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +14.3% |
| 2018 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2020 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2021 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2022 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | -12.5% |
| 2023 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2024 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2025 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Bhutan compared with similar countries
- Bhutan's 3.5 1=low to 6=high is above the median for lower middle income countries, which is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, 1.0× the median. (39 countries reporting)
- Bhutan's 3.5 1=low to 6=high is above the median for South Asia, which is 3.25 1=low to 6=high, 1.1× the median. (6 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.3 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 3.8 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 3.67 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Bhutan
- 19 Bangladesh 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Bolivia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Burkina Faso 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Cape Verde 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Cambodia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Chad 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Democratic Republic of Congo 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Congo 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Gambia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Guinea 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Guyana 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 India 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Kenya 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Kyrgyzstan 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Laos 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Liberia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Mali 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Moldova 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Nigeria 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Saint Lucia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Tajikistan 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Tonga 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Vietnam 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 19 Zimbabwe 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Bhutan
- 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 5.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2021)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 5.16 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2021)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), gaps filled 4.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2021)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per square kilometre 104.88 SIPRI trend indicator values per square kilometre (2021)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia fiscal policy rating in Bhutan?
- Cpia fiscal policy rating in Bhutan was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
- What is the highest cpia fiscal policy rating recorded in Bhutan?
- The highest recorded value was 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2007.
- What is the lowest cpia fiscal policy rating recorded in Bhutan?
- The lowest recorded value was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2012.
- How does Bhutan rank for cpia fiscal policy rating?
- Bhutan ranks 19th out of 85 countries with data for 2025.
- Is cpia fiscal policy rating rising or falling in Bhutan?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Bhutan data come from?
- The figures come from CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as part of CPIA fiscal 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).
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). This CPIA fiscal policy criterion assesses the quality of the fiscal policy in its stabilization and allocation functions. The stabilization function deals with achieving macroeconomic policy objectives in conjunction with coherent monetary and exchange rate policies—smoothing business cycle fluctuations, accommodating shocks. The allocation function is concerned with the appropriate provision of public goods. The criterion pays attention to public expenditure composition, including, for example, the provision of public infrastructure and agriculture related public goods and services that support medium-term growth.