CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Marshall Islands
Marshall Islands: CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▬ Flat
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Marshall Islands, 2011–2025
Source: CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG). Measured in 1=low to 6=high.
Analysis
In 2025, cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Marshall Islands stood at 3.5 1=low to 6=high. That is the highest value across all 15 years on record.
The figure is unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Marshall Islands peaked at 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2011 and was at its lowest, 3.5 1=low to 6=high, in 2011.
Marshall Islands ranks 11th of 85 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Marshall Islands, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2012 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2013 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 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% |
| 2020 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2021 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2022 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2023 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2024 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2025 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 9 |
| 2020s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Marshall Islands
- 11 Armenia 3.5 1=low to 6=high
- 11 Benin 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 11 Fiji 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 11 Georgia 3.5 1=low to 6=high
- 11 India 3.5 1=low to 6=high
- 11 Kenya 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 11 Kiribati 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 11 Kosovo 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 11 Micronesia, Federated States of 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 11 Rwanda 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 11 Senegal 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 11 Tonga 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 11 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 3.5 1=low to 6=high compare
More public sector data for Marshall Islands
- Tax revenue 17.2% (2020)
- Taxes on income, profits and capital gains 9.7% (2020)
- Taxes on goods and services 8.4% (2020)
- Net investment in nonfinancial assets 8.8% (2020)
- Net lending (+) / net borrowing (-) 5.0% (2020)
- Interest payments 0.4% (2020)
- Grants and other revenue 75.8% (2020)
- Interest payments 0.5% (2020)
- Other taxes 0.8% (2020)
- Compensation of employees 35.3% (2020)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Marshall Islands?
- Cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Marshall Islands was 3.5 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 Marshall Islands?
- The highest recorded value was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2011.
- What is the lowest cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public recorded in Marshall Islands?
- The lowest recorded value was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2011.
- How does Marshall Islands rank for cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public?
- Marshall Islands ranks 11th out of 85 countries with data for 2025.
- Is cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public rising or falling in Marshall Islands?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Marshall Islands 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 — 15 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.