CPIA transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (1=low to 6=high)
Compare cpia transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector rating (1=low to 6=high) across 77 countries using the latest fixed-year World Bank WDI observations for 2025.
Loading visualization...
Key Insights
- •77 ISO-mapped countries or territories have a finite fixed-year observation.
- •Saint Lucia has the highest published value (4.5 score).
- •Eritrea has the lowest published value (1 score).
Country Rankings
Top 10 Countries
Bottom 10 Countries
Data Analysis
Value Distribution
How countries are distributed across the value range
Regional Comparison
Average values by world region (Global avg: 2.7score)
Percentile Profile
The curve shows how values change from the lowest to the highest country. Steep sections reveal inequality or outliers.
About This Statistic
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.
Values use one fixed 2025 reference year from World Development Indicators series IQ.CPA.TRAN.XQ. MapTheory excludes aggregates, missing/non-finite values, and geographies without an ISO 3166-1 numeric mapping; it does not interpolate missing countries.
Methodology
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.
Full Data
| Rank ↑ | Country ↕ | Value ↕ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cape Verde | 4.5score |
| 2 | Saint Lucia | 4.5score |
| 3 | Bhutan | 4.5score |
| 4 | Dominica | 4.0score |
| 5 | Ghana | 4.0score |
| 6 | Grenada | 4.0score |
| 7 | Cote d'Ivoire | 4.0score |
| 8 | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 4.0score |
| 9 | Tuvalu | 4.0score |
| 10 | Samoa | 4.0score |
| 11 | Benin | 3.5score |
| 12 | Fiji | 3.5score |
| 13 | Kiribati | 3.5score |
| 14 | Kenya | 3.5score |
| 15 | Micronesia, Federated States of | 3.5score |
| 16 | Marshall Islands | 3.5score |
| 17 | Rwanda | 3.5score |
| 18 | Senegal | 3.5score |
| 19 | Tonga | 3.5score |
| 20 | Cameroon | 3.0score |
| 21 | Sri Lanka | 3.0score |
| 22 | Ethiopia | 3.0score |
| 23 | Djibouti | 3.0score |
| 24 | Republic of The Gambia | 3.0score |
| 25 | Guyana | 3.0score |
| 26 | Lesotho | 3.0score |
| 27 | Malawi | 3.0score |
| 28 | Maldives | 3.0score |
| 29 | Mauritania | 3.0score |
| 30 | Vanuatu | 3.0score |
| 31 | Nigeria | 3.0score |
| 32 | Pakistan | 3.0score |
| 33 | Timor-Leste | 3.0score |
| 34 | Sao Tome and Principe | 3.0score |
| 35 | Sierra Leone | 3.0score |
| 36 | United Republic of Tanzania | 3.0score |
| 37 | Burkina Faso | 3.0score |
| 38 | Uzbekistan | 3.0score |
| 39 | Belize | 3.0score |
| 40 | Solomon Islands | 3.0score |
| 41 | Central African Republic | 2.5score |
| 42 | Republic of the Congo | 2.5score |
| 43 | Democratic Republic of the Congo | 2.5score |
| 44 | Guinea | 2.5score |
| 45 | Honduras | 2.5score |
| 46 | Kyrgyzstan | 2.5score |
| 47 | Lao People's Democratic Republic | 2.5score |
| 48 | Liberia | 2.5score |
| 49 | Madagascar | 2.5score |
| 50 | Nepal | 2.5score |
| 51 | Niger | 2.5score |
| 52 | Zimbabwe | 2.5score |
| 53 | Suriname | 2.5score |
| 54 | Tajikistan | 2.5score |
| 55 | Togo | 2.5score |
| 56 | Uganda | 2.5score |
| 57 | Zambia | 2.5score |
| 58 | Bangladesh | 2.5score |
| 59 | Cambodia | 2.0score |
| 60 | Chad | 2.0score |
| 61 | Comoros | 2.0score |
| 62 | Mali | 2.0score |
| 63 | Mozambique | 2.0score |
| 64 | Papua New Guinea | 2.0score |
| 65 | Syrian Arab Republic | 2.0score |
| 66 | Myanmar | 1.5score |
| 67 | Burundi | 1.5score |
| 68 | Haiti | 1.5score |
| 69 | Nicaragua | 1.5score |
| 70 | Guinea-Bissau | 1.5score |
| 71 | Somalia | 1.5score |
| 72 | Eswatini | 1.5score |
| 73 | Afghanistan | 1.5score |
| 74 | Eritrea | 1.0score |
| 75 | South Sudan | 1.0score |
| 76 | Sudan | 1.0score |
| 77 | Yemen | 1.0score |
Topics
Data Source
This data comes from World Bank World Development Indicators (2025).
View Original Source