CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Bhutan
Bhutan: CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public was 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▲ Rising
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Bhutan, 2005–2025
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
Bhutan recorded 4.5 1=low to 6=high for cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in 2025. That is the highest value across all 21 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Bhutan peaked at 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2009 and was at its lowest, 4 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 transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Bhutan, 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 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +12.5% |
| 2010 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2020 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2021 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2022 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2023 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2024 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2025 | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.1 1=low to 6=high | 4 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 4.5 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Bhutan
- 1 Cape Verde 4.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 1 Saint Lucia 4.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 4 Côte d'Ivoire 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 4 Dominica 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 4 Ghana 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 4 Grenada 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 4 Samoa 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 4 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 4 1=low to 6=high compare
- 4 Tuvalu 4 1=low to 6=high compare
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 transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Bhutan?
- Cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public 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 transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public recorded in Bhutan?
- The highest recorded value was 4.5 1=low to 6=high in 2009.
- What is the lowest cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public recorded in Bhutan?
- The lowest recorded value was 4 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- How does Bhutan rank for cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public?
- Bhutan ranks 1st out of 85 countries with data for 2025.
- Is cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public rising or falling in Bhutan?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. 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 transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector 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 Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (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 Transparency, Accountability, and Corruption in the Public Sector criterion assesses the extent to which the executive, legislators, and other high-level officials can be held accountable for their use of funds, administrative decisions, and results obtained. Accountability is generally enhanced by transparency in decision-making, access to relevant and timely information, public and media scrutiny, and by institutional checks (e.g., inspector general, ombudsman, or independent audit) on the authority of the chief executive. The criterion covers four dimensions: (a) the accountability of the executive and other top officials to effective oversight institutions; (b) access of civil society to timely and reliable information on public affairs and public policies, including fiscal information (on public expenditures, revenues, and large contract awards); (c) state capture by narrow vested interests; and (d) integrity in the management of public resources, including aid and natural resource revenues.