CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating (1=low) in Mongolia
Mongolia: CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating (1=low) was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2019. ▼ Falling
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Mongolia, 2005–2019
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
The most recent figure for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Mongolia is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2019.
The figure is down 12.5% over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Mongolia peaked at 4 1=low to 6=high in 2005 and was at its lowest, 3 1=low to 6=high, in 2014.
Mongolia ranks 16th of 85 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 15 years of available data.
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating (1=low) in Mongolia, 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 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 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 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | -12.5% |
| 2012 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 3 1=low to 6=high | -14.3% |
| 2015 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +16.7% |
| 2016 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Mongolia compared with similar countries
- Mongolia's 3.5 1=low to 6=high is above the median for upper middle income countries, which is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, 1.0× the median. (21 countries reporting)
- Mongolia's 3.5 1=low to 6=high is above the median for East Asia & Pacific, which is 3 1=low to 6=high, 1.2× the median. (16 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
Countries ranked near Mongolia
- 16 Azerbaijan 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Burkina Faso 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Cape Verde 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Cambodia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Cameroon 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Ghana 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Guyana 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Honduras 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 India 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Kenya 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Samoa 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Tajikistan 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Tanzania 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Togo 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Tonga 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Uganda 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Vanuatu 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Vietnam 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Mongolia
- 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 3.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2022)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 0.8737 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2022)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per unit of GDP 0.0002 SIPRI trend indicator values per US$ of GDP (2022)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), annual growth rate -88 % change on previous year (2022)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Mongolia?
- Cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Mongolia was 3.5 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 Mongolia?
- The highest recorded value was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- What is the lowest cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating recorded in Mongolia?
- The lowest recorded value was 3 1=low to 6=high in 2014.
- How does Mongolia rank for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating?
- Mongolia ranks 16th out of 85 countries with data for 2019.
- Is cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating rising or falling in Mongolia?
- Over the last ten years it is down 12.5%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Mongolia 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.