CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating (1=low to 6=high) by country

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...

Countries reporting
85
Highest
4.5 1=low to 6=high
Armenia
Lowest
1 1=low to 6=high
Yemen
Median
3 1=low to 6=high
Years covered
21
2005–2025
Data points
2,460

What the numbers show

CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating (1=low to 6=high) is currently reported for 85 countries. The highest value is 4.5 1=low to 6=high in Armenia; the lowest is 1 1=low to 6=high in Yemen.

The median across all reporting countries is 3 1=low to 6=high, and the mean is 3.05 1=low to 6=high.

The gap between the highest and lowest reporting country is a factor of about 4.

Over the past decade 22 countries rose and 35 fell. The largest increase was in Togo (up 40.0%), and the largest decrease in Yemen (down 66.7%).

CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating: full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 Armenia 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2013 up 12.5% rising
1 Bhutan 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 28.6% rising
1 Georgia 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2013 up 28.6% rising
1 Kosovo 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 12.5% flat
1 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 4.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 12.5% flat
6 Benin 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 14.3% rising
6 Côte d'Ivoire 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 33.3% rising
6 Ethiopia 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
6 Gambia 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 33.3% rising
6 Sri Lanka 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
6 Republic of Moldova 4 1=low to 6=high 2019 unchanged rising
6 Mauritania 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 33.3% rising
6 Pakistan 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 14.3% rising
6 Rwanda 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
6 Uzbekistan 4 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
16 Azerbaijan 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2010 down 12.5% falling
16 Burkina Faso 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 12.5% falling
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2013 unchanged flat
16 Cameroon 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 16.7% rising
16 Cape Verde 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
16 Ghana 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
16 Guyana 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
16 Honduras 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
16 India 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2013 down 12.5% falling
16 Kenya 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
16 Cambodia 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 16.7% rising
16 Mongolia 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2019 down 12.5% falling
16 Togo 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 40.0% rising
16 Tajikistan 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
16 Tonga 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
16 Tanzania, United Republic of 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 16.7% falling
16 Uganda 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
16 Viet Nam 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2015 down 12.5% falling
16 Vanuatu 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
16 Samoa 3.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 12.5% rising
36 Bangladesh 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
36 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 3 1=low to 6=high 2015 down 14.3% falling
36 Congo 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 20.0% rising
36 Djibouti 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 20.0% flat
36 Fiji 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 20.0% rising
36 Grenada 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
36 Kyrgyzstan 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% flat
36 Lao People's Democratic Republic 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% flat
36 Saint Lucia 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 20.0% falling
36 Maldives 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 20.0% flat
36 Mali 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
36 Nepal 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
36 Papua New Guinea 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
36 Senegal 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% flat
36 Solomon Islands 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 20.0% flat
36 Sierra Leone 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
36 Sao Tome and Principe 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
36 Chad 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
36 Timor-Leste 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
36 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
36 Zambia 3 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 14.3% falling
57 Angola 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2013 unchanged flat
57 Burundi 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 16.7% falling
57 Central African Republic 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged rising
57 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 16.7% flat
57 Dominica 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 28.6% falling
57 Micronesia, Federated States of 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged flat
57 Guinea 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 16.7% flat
57 Guinea-Bissau 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 25.0% falling
57 Kiribati 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
57 Liberia 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 16.7% falling
57 Lesotho 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 16.7% falling
57 Madagascar 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 unchanged falling
57 Myanmar 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 28.6% falling
57 Mozambique 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 37.5% falling
57 Malawi 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 16.7% falling
57 Niger 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 28.6% falling
57 Nigeria 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 16.7% falling
57 Nicaragua 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 28.6% falling
57 Somalia 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 up 25.0% rising
57 Tuvalu 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 28.6% falling
57 Zimbabwe 2.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 28.6% rising
78 Comoros 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 20.0% rising
78 Haiti 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 20.0% falling
78 Marshall Islands 2 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 20.0% falling
81 Afghanistan 1.5 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 57.1% falling
82 Eritrea 1 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 50.0% falling
82 Sudan 1 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 60.0% falling
82 South Sudan 1 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 33.3% falling
82 Yemen 1 1=low to 6=high 2025 down 66.7% 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 quality of budgetary and financial management rating by country. Statizoid, drawing on CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Retrieved 09 September 2026, from https://public-sector.statizoid.com/stat/cpia-quality-of-budgetary-and-financial-management-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-quality-of-budgetary-and-financial-management-rating-1-low-to-6-high/">CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating by country</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management 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 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 quality of budgetary and financial management criterion assesses the extent to which there is: (a) a comprehensive and credible budget, linked to policy priorities; (b) effective financial management systems to ensure that the budget is implemented as intended in a controlled and predictable way; and (c) timely and accurate accounting and fiscal reporting, including timely audit of public accounts and effective arrangements for follow up.