CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Myanmar
Myanmar: CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public was 1.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▼ Falling
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Myanmar, 2013–2025
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 Myanmar is 1.5 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2025. That is the lowest value across all 13 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is down 50.0% over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Myanmar peaked at 3 1=low to 6=high in 2014 and was at its lowest, 1.5 1=low to 6=high, in 2021.
Myanmar ranks 74th of 84 countries on this measure, in the bottom quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 13 years of available data.
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Myanmar, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2014 | 3 1=low to 6=high | +20.0% |
| 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 | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2020 | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2021 | 1.5 1=low to 6=high | -40.0% |
| 2022 | 1.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2023 | 1.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2024 | 1.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2025 | 1.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 2.71 1=low to 6=high | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | 3 1=low to 6=high | 7 |
| 2020s | 1.67 1=low to 6=high | 1.5 1=low to 6=high | 2.5 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Myanmar
More public sector data for Myanmar
- Arms imports 222.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per capita 4.07 SIPRI trend indicator values per person (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per unit of GDP 0.003 SIPRI trend indicator values per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), annual growth rate 73.44 % change on previous year (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), gaps filled 222.00 million SIPRI trend indicator values (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per capita 91.95 current USD per person (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), per unit of GDP 0.0677 current USD per US$ of GDP (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), annual growth rate 100.97 % change on previous year (2024)
- Military expenditure (current USD), gaps filled 5.01 billion current USD (2024)
- Arms imports (SIPRI trend indicator values), per square kilometre 196.12 SIPRI trend indicator values per square kilometre (2023)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Myanmar?
- Cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Myanmar was 1.5 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 Myanmar?
- The highest recorded value was 3 1=low to 6=high in 2014.
- What is the lowest cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public recorded in Myanmar?
- The lowest recorded value was 1.5 1=low to 6=high in 2021.
- How does Myanmar rank for cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public?
- Myanmar ranks 74th out of 84 countries with data for 2025.
- Is cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public rising or falling in Myanmar?
- Over the last ten years it is down 50.0%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Myanmar 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 — 13 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.