CPIA quality of public administration rating in Viet Nam
Viet Nam: CPIA quality of public administration rating was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2015. ▼ Falling
CPIA quality of public administration rating in Viet Nam, 2005–2015
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
Viet Nam recorded 3.5 1=low to 6=high for cpia quality of public administration rating in 2015. That is the highest value across all 11 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is up 16.7% on the previous year and unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia quality of public administration rating in Viet Nam peaked at 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2005 and was at its lowest, 3 1=low to 6=high, in 2014.
Viet Nam ranks 6th of 85 countries on this measure, in the top 10%.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 11 years of available data.
CPIA quality of public administration rating in Viet Nam, 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 1=low to 6=high | -14.3% |
| 2015 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +16.7% |
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 | 3.42 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Viet Nam
- 6 Armenia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Benin 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Burkina Faso 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Côte d'Ivoire 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Djibouti 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Dominica 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Ethiopia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Fiji 3.5 1=low to 6=high
- 6 Ghana 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Grenada 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Guinea 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 India 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Kenya 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Mongolia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Senegal 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Sri Lanka 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Saint Lucia 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Tonga 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Uganda 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 6 Uzbekistan 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Viet Nam
- Arms imports 58.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 0.5743 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per unit of GDP 0.0001 SIPRI trend indicator values per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), annual growth rate 5.45 % change on previous year (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), gaps filled 58.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per capita 57.15 current USD per person (2018)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per unit of GDP 0.0177 current USD per US$ of GDP (2018)
- Military expenditure (current USD), annual growth rate 8.4 % change on previous year (2018)
- Military expenditure (current USD), gaps filled 5.50 billion current USD (2018)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per square kilometre 175.48 SIPRI trend indicator values per square kilometre (2023)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia quality of public administration rating in Viet Nam?
- Cpia quality of public administration rating in Viet Nam was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2015, according to CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG).
- What is the highest cpia quality of public administration rating recorded in Viet Nam?
- The highest recorded value was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- What is the lowest cpia quality of public administration rating recorded in Viet Nam?
- The lowest recorded value was 3 1=low to 6=high in 2014.
- How does Viet Nam rank for cpia quality of public administration rating?
- Viet Nam ranks 6th out of 85 countries with data for 2015.
- Is cpia quality of public administration rating rising or falling in Viet Nam?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Viet Nam data come from?
- The figures come from CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as part of CPIA quality of public administration rating (1=low to 6=high). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 11 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 CPIA Quality of Public Administration criterion covers the core administration defined as the civilian central government (and subnational governments, to the extent that their size or policy responsibilities are significant) excluding health and education personnel, and police. The criterion assesses the functioning of the core administration in three areas: (a) managing its own operations; (b) ensuring quality in policy implementation and regulatory management; and (c) coordinating the larger public sector Human Resources Management regime outside the core administration (de-concentrated and arms-length bodies and subsidiary governments).