CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Samoa
Samoa: CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▲ Rising
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Samoa, 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 Samoa stood at 3.5 1=low to 6=high. That is the lowest value across all 21 years on record.
That represents a change of down 12.5% over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Samoa peaked at 4 1=low to 6=high in 2005 and was at its lowest, 3.5 1=low to 6=high, in 2006.
Samoa ranks 16th of 85 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 21 years of available data.
CPIA quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Samoa, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 4 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | -12.5% |
| 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 | 4 1=low to 6=high | +14.3% |
| 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 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | -12.5% |
| 2025 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.6 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 3.85 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 3.83 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Samoa
- 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 Mongolia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Tajikistan 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 16 Tanzania, United Republic of 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 Viet Nam 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Samoa
- Tax revenue 24.0% (2023)
- Taxes on income, profits and capital gains 13.8% (2023)
- Taxes on goods and services 45.1% (2023)
- Net investment in nonfinancial assets 4.6% (2023)
- Net lending (+) / net borrowing (-) 4.4% (2023)
- Interest payments 1.2% (2023)
- Grants and other revenue 31.5% (2023)
- Interest payments 1.7% (2023)
- Other taxes 0.0% (2023)
- Compensation of employees 46.1% (2023)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Samoa?
- Cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating in Samoa was 3.5 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 Samoa?
- 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 Samoa?
- The lowest recorded value was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2006.
- How does Samoa rank for cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating?
- Samoa ranks 16th out of 85 countries with data for 2025.
- Is cpia quality of budgetary and financial management rating rising or falling in Samoa?
- Over the last ten years it is down 12.5%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Samoa 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.