CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating (1=low) in Moldova
Moldova: CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating (1=low) was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2019. ▲ Rising
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Moldova, 2005–2019
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
Moldova recorded 4 1=low to 6=high for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in 2019. That is the highest value across all 15 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Moldova peaked at 4 1=low to 6=high in 2007 and was at its lowest, 3.5 1=low to 6=high, in 2005.
Moldova ranks 6th of 85 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.
The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 15 years of available data.
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating (1=low) in Moldova, 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 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +14.3% |
| 2008 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 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% |
Moldova compared with similar countries
- Moldova's 4 1=low to 6=high is above the median for upper middle income countries, which is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, 1.1× the median. (21 countries reporting)
- Moldova's 4 1=low to 6=high is above the median for Europe & Central Asia, which is 4 1=low to 6=high, 1.0× the median. (9 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.8 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
Countries ranked near Moldova
- 6 Benin 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Cote d'Ivoire 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Ethiopia 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Gambia 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Mauritania 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Pakistan 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Rwanda 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Sri Lanka 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Uzbekistan 4 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Moldova
- 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 (2025)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per capita 46.09 current USD per person (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per unit of GDP 0.0061 current USD per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), annual growth rate 17.34 % change on previous year (2024)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Moldova?
- Cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Moldova was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2019, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
- What is the highest cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating recorded in Moldova?
- The highest recorded value was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2007.
- What is the lowest cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating recorded in Moldova?
- The lowest recorded value was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- How does Moldova rank for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating?
- Moldova ranks 6th out of 85 countries with data for 2019.
- Is cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating rising or falling in Moldova?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Moldova 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 — 15 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.