CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Pacific island small states
Pacific island small states: CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public was 3.5 1=low to 6=high in 2025. ▲ Rising
CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Pacific island small states, 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 Pacific island small states is 3.5 1=low to 6=high, measured in 2025.
The figure is up 1.8% over ten years.
Over the whole period, cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Pacific island small states peaked at 3.56 1=low to 6=high in 2021 and was at its lowest, 3.1 1=low to 6=high, in 2005.
That places Pacific island small states 3rd out of 42 groups with data for 2025, putting it 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 Pacific island small states, year by year
| Year | 1=low to 6=high | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 3.1 1=low to 6=high | — |
| 2006 | 3.1 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 3.2 1=low to 6=high | +3.2% |
| 2008 | 3.3 1=low to 6=high | +3.1% |
| 2009 | 3.3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2010 | 3.3 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 3.36 1=low to 6=high | +1.7% |
| 2012 | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | +2.4% |
| 2013 | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2014 | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2015 | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2016 | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2020 | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | +0.2% |
| 2021 | 3.56 1=low to 6=high | +3.2% |
| 2022 | 3.56 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2023 | 3.56 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
| 2024 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | -1.6% |
| 2025 | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | +0.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.2 1=low to 6=high | 3.1 1=low to 6=high | 3.3 1=low to 6=high | 5 |
| 2010s | 3.42 1=low to 6=high | 3.3 1=low to 6=high | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | 10 |
| 2020s | 3.52 1=low to 6=high | 3.44 1=low to 6=high | 3.56 1=low to 6=high | 6 |
Countries ranked near Pacific island small states
- 1 Bhutan 4.5 1=low to 6=high compare
- 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 Pacific island small states
- Tax revenue 20.9% (2023)
- Net investment in nonfinancial assets 4.0% (2023)
- Net lending (+) / net borrowing (-) -1.8% (2023)
- Net incurrence of liabilities, total 3.0% (2023)
- Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments 8.8% (2025)
- Internally displaced persons, new displacement associated with 76,359 number of cases (2023)
- Net acquisition of financial assets 0.5% (2023)
- CPIA business regulatory environment rating 2.78 1=low to 6=high (2025)
- CPIA debt policy rating 3.06 1=low to 6=high (2025)
- CPIA economic management cluster average 3.13 1=low to 6=high (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Pacific island small states?
- Cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public in Pacific island small states 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 Pacific island small states?
- The highest recorded value was 3.56 1=low to 6=high in 2021.
- What is the lowest cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public recorded in Pacific island small states?
- The lowest recorded value was 3.1 1=low to 6=high in 2005.
- How does Pacific island small states rank for cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public?
- Pacific island small states ranks 3rd out of 42 groups with data for 2025.
- Is cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public rising or falling in Pacific island small states?
- Over the last ten years it is up 1.8%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Pacific island small states 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.