CPIA policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating in Bhutan
Bhutan: CPIA policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▼ Falling
CPIA policy and institutions for environmental sustainability 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 policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating in Bhutan is 4 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2025. That is the lowest value across all 21 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating in Bhutan peaked at 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2005 and was at its lowest, 4 1=low to 6=high, in 2011.
Bhutan ranks 3rd of 85 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 21 years of available data.
CPIA policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating in Bhutan, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 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 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 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 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2023 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2024 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2025 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Bhutan compared with similar countries
- Bhutan's 4 1=low to 6=high is above the median for lower middle income countries, which is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, 1.1× the median. (39 countries reporting)
- Bhutan's 4 1=low to 6=high is above the median for South Asia, which is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, 1.1× the median. (6 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 4.05 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Bhutan
- 1 Rwanda 4.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Togo 4.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Benin 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Burkina Faso 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Cape Verde 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Cote d'Ivoire 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Fiji 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Grenada 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Guinea 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 India 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Kenya 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Moldova 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Saint Lucia 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Vietnam 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 3 Zimbabwe 4 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 policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating in Bhutan?
- Cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating in Bhutan was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2025, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
- What is the highest cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating recorded in Bhutan?
- The highest recorded value was 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- What is the lowest cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating recorded in Bhutan?
- The lowest recorded value was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2011.
- How does Bhutan rank for cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability rating?
- Bhutan ranks 3rd out of 85 countries with data for 2025.
- Is cpia policy and institutions for environmental sustainability 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 policy and institutions for environmental sustainability 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 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). This criterion assesses the extent to which environmental policies and institutions foster the protection and sustainable use of natural resources and the management of pollution.