CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Maldives
Maldives: CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public was 3 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▲ Rising
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Maldives, 2005–2025
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
The most recent figure for cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Maldives is 3 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2025. That is the highest value across all 21 years on record.
The figure is unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Maldives peaked at 3 1=low to 6=high in 2005 and was at its lowest, 2.5 1=low to 6=high, in 2006.
That places Maldives 25th out of 85 countries with data for 2025, putting it in the middle of the range.
The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 21 years of available data.
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Maldives, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 3 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | -16.7% |
| 2007 | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +20.0% |
| 2010 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | -16.7% |
| 2018 | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +20.0% |
| 2020 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2021 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2022 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2023 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2024 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2025 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.7 1=low to 6=high | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 2.9 1=low to 6=high | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 3 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Maldives
- 25 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Burkina Faso 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Cameroon 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Djibouti 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Ethiopia 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Gambia 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Guyana 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Lesotho 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Malawi 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Mauritania 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Mongolia 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Nigeria 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Pakistan 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Sao Tome and Principe 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Sierra Leone 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Solomon Islands 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Sri Lanka 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Tanzania, United Republic of 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Timor-Leste 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Uzbekistan 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Vanuatu 3 1=low to 6=high compare
- 25 Viet Nam 3 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Maldives
- Arms imports 7.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 13.26 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per unit of GDP 0.001 SIPRI trend indicator values per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), gaps filled 7.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per square kilometre 6,667 SIPRI trend indicator values per square kilometre (2021)
- Tax revenue 19.5% (2021)
- Capital stock, General government, Current prices, Domestic currency 110.64 (2019)
- Taxes on income, profits and capital gains 12.7% (2021)
- Capital stock, General government, Constant prices, Percent of GDP 133.64 (2019)
- Capital stock, General government, Constant prices, Purchasing power 14.77 (2019)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Maldives?
- Cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Maldives was 3 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 Maldives?
- The highest recorded value was 3 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- What is the lowest cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public recorded in Maldives?
- The lowest recorded value was 2.5 1=low to 6=high in 2006.
- How does Maldives rank for cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public?
- Maldives ranks 25th out of 85 countries with data for 2025.
- Is cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public rising or falling in Maldives?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Maldives 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.