CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Bhutan
Bhutan: CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating was 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▲ Rising
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Bhutan, 2005–2025
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
In 2025, cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Bhutan stood at 4.5 1=low to 6=high. That is the highest value across all 21 years on record.
The figure is up 12.5% on the previous year and up 28.6% over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Bhutan peaked at 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025 and was at its lowest, 3.5 1=low to 6=high, in 2005.
Bhutan ranks 1st of 85 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.
The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 21 years of available data.
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Bhutan, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 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 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +14.3% |
| 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 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +12.5% |
Bhutan compared with similar countries
- Bhutan's 4.5 1=low to 6=high is above the median for lower middle income countries, which is 3 1=low to 6=high, 1.5× the median. (39 countries reporting)
- Bhutan's 4.5 1=low to 6=high is above the median for South Asia, which is 3.25 1=low to 6=high, 1.4× the median. (6 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 3.7 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 4.08 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Bhutan
More public sector data for Bhutan
- Arms imports 4.00 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)
- Tax revenue 12.3% (2020)
- Capital stock, General government, Current prices, Domestic currency 245.49 (2019)
- Taxes on income, profits and capital gains 19.9% (2020)
- Capital stock, General government, Constant prices, Percent of GDP 94.12 (2019)
- Capital stock, General government, Constant prices, Purchasing power 8.39 (2019)
- Taxes on goods and services 17.9% (2020)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Bhutan?
- Cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Bhutan was 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
- What is the highest cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating recorded in Bhutan?
- The highest recorded value was 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025.
- What is the lowest cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating recorded in Bhutan?
- The lowest recorded value was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- How does Bhutan rank for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating?
- Bhutan ranks 1st out of 85 countries with data for 2025.
- Is cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating rising or falling in Bhutan?
- Over the last ten years it is up 28.6%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Bhutan data come from?
- The figures come from CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as part of CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management 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). 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.