The most common poverty measures, including that used by the OECD, focus on income based approaches. One of the most common measures of income poverty is the proportion of households with income less than half median equivalised disposable household income (which is set as the poverty line); this is a relative income poverty measure as poverty is measured by reference to the income of others rather than in some absolute sense. Australia has one of the highest household disposable incomes in the world, which means that an Australian relative income poverty line is set at a high level of income compared to most other countries.

OECD statistics on Australian poverty 2013–2014 (based on ABS Survey of Income and Housing data and applying a poverty line of 50% of median income) determined the Australian poverty rate was over 26% before taxes and transfers, but falls to just under 13% after taxes and transfers. Though measuring poverty through application of solely an income measure is not considered comprehensive for an Australian context, however, it does demonstrate that the Australian welfare system more than halves the number of Australians that would otherwise be considered as at risk of living in poverty under that measure.
It is important to consider a range of indicators of persistent disadvantage to understand poverty and hardship and its multidimensional nature. Different indicators point to different dimensions of poverty. While transient poverty is a problem, the experience of persistent poverty is of deeper concern, particularly where families experience intergenerational disadvantage and long-term welfare reliance. HILDA data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research shows the Distribution of number of years in poverty 2001–2015. The figure focuses on the longer term experience of working age adults and shows that while people do fall into poverty, only a small proportion of people are persistently poor.

Out of all OECD countries, Cost Rica had the highest poverty rate as of 2022, at over 20 percent. The country with the second highest poverty rate was the United States, with 18 percent. On the other end of the scale, Czechia had the lowest poverty rate at 6.4 percent, followed by Denmark.

The significance of the OECD

The OECD, or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was founded in 1948 and is made up of 38 member countries. It seeks to improve the economic and social well-being of countries and their populations. The OECD looks at issues that impact people’s everyday lives and proposes policies that can help to improve the quality of life.

Poverty in the United States

In 2022, there were nearly 38 million people living below the poverty line in the U.S.. About one fourth of the Native American population lived in poverty in 2022, the most out of any ethnicity. In addition, the rate was higher among young women than young men. It is clear that poverty in the United States is a complex, multi-faceted issue that affects millions of people and is even more complex to solve.

This statistic depicts the share of individuals living below the poverty line in Australia in the financial year 2016. That financial year, **** percent of individuals aged 15 years and under and **** percent of those aged between 25 and 64 were deemed to have been living in poverty. Of those aged 65 years and older, **** percent who were living in rented accommodation were below the poverty line, compared to **** percent of those that were not renting.

Historical dataset showing Australia poverty rate by year from 1981 to 2018.

Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at Societal Poverty Lines: % of Population data was reported at 12.700 % in 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 12.200 % for 2016. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at Societal Poverty Lines: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 12.200 % from Dec 1981 (Median) to 2018, with 12 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13.200 % in 1989 and a record low of 11.200 % in 2014. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at Societal Poverty Lines: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The poverty headcount ratio at societal poverty line is the percentage of a population living in poverty according to the World Bank's Societal Poverty Line. The Societal Poverty Line is expressed in purchasing power adjusted 2017 U.S. dollars and defined as max($2.15, $1.15 + 0.5*Median). This means that when the national median is sufficiently low, the Societal Poverty line is equivalent to the extreme poverty line, $2.15. For countries with a sufficiently high national median, the Societal Poverty Line grows as countries’ median income grows.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

In 2022, ** percent of respondents receiving assistance from the Salvation Army and whose main income source was Centrelink payments were living below the poverty line in Australia. Around ** percent of respondents in full-time employment were living below the poverty line in the same year.

AU: Increase in Poverty Gap at $3.20: Poverty Line Due To Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: 2011 PPP: USD data was reported at 0.000 USD in 2010. AU: Increase in Poverty Gap at $3.20: Poverty Line Due To Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: 2011 PPP: USD data is updated yearly, averaging 0.000 USD from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2010, with 1 observations. AU: Increase in Poverty Gap at $3.20: Poverty Line Due To Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: 2011 PPP: USD data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Increase in poverty gap at $3.20 ($ 2011 PPP) poverty line due to out-of-pocket health care expenditure, expressed in US dollars (2011 PPP). The poverty gap increase due to out-of-pocket health spending is one way to measure how much out-of-pocket health spending pushes people below or further below the poverty line (the difference in the poverty gap due to out-of-pocket health spending being included or excluded from the measure of household welfare). This difference corresponds to the total out-of-pocket health spending for households that are already below the poverty line, to the amount that exceeds the shortfall between the poverty line and total consumption for households that are impoverished by out-of-pocket health spending and to zero for households whose consumption is above the poverty line after accounting for out-of-pocket health spending.; ; World Health Organization and World Bank. 2019. Global Monitoring Report on Financial Protection in Health 2019.; Weighted average;

Australia Proportion of Population Pushed Below the 50% Median Consumption Poverty Line By Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: % data was reported at 0.869 % in 2010. Australia Proportion of Population Pushed Below the 50% Median Consumption Poverty Line By Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: % data is updated yearly, averaging 0.869 % from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2010, with 1 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.869 % in 2010 and a record low of 0.869 % in 2010. Australia Proportion of Population Pushed Below the 50% Median Consumption Poverty Line By Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Proportion of population pushed below the 50% median consumption poverty line by out-of-pocket health care expenditure, expressed as a percentage of a total population of a country; ; Wagstaff et al. Progress on Impoverishing Health Spending: Results for 122 Countries. A Retrospective Observational Study, Lancet Global Health 2017; Weighted Average;

0.70 (%) in 2018. Population below $3.1 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $3.1 a day at 2005 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.

Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data was reported at 13.400 % in 2020. This records a decrease from the previous number of 13.600 % for 2018. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 13.500 % from Dec 2018 (Median) to 2020, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13.600 % in 2018 and a record low of 13.400 % in 2020. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. National poverty headcount ratio is the percentage of the population living below the national poverty line(s). National estimates are based on population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys. For economies for which the data are from EU-SILC, the reported year is the income reference year, which is the year before the survey year.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are compiled from official government sources or are computed by World Bank staff using national (i.e. country–specific) poverty lines.;;This series only includes estimates that to the best of our knowledge are reasonably comparable over time for a country. Due to differences in estimation methodologies and poverty lines, estimates should not be compared across countries.

Using a poverty metric of 2.15 U.S. dollars per day, 38.7 percent of the women in Sub-Saharan Africa were living in extreme poverty in 2023. On the other hand, less than one percent of the population in Europe and North America as well as Australia and New Zealand were living in extreme poverty. Nevertheless, there are also many people in these regions struggling to make ends meet.

NATSEM estimates of housing stress (2006 and 2010) and estimates of poverty variables (2006) of SLAs, excluding SLAs in Brisbane and Canberra, in Australia. These data were derived from spatial microsimulation using 2006 Census benchmarks (SPATIALMSM08b) applied to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Confidentialised Unit Record File data. For housing stress, the indicator is based on a commonly used measure of housing stress known as the 30/40 rule. Using this definition, a household is said to be in housing stress if it spends more than 30 per cent of its gross income on housing costs and if it also falls into the bottom 40 per cent of the equivalised disposable household income distribution. The poverty indicator represents the percentage of people in households where income is below the poverty line. The poverty line has been set at half the median OECD equivalised household disposable income.

Australia Proportion of Population Pushed Below the $3.10: Poverty Line by Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: 2011 PPP: % data was reported at 0.000 % in 2010. Australia Proportion of Population Pushed Below the $3.10: Poverty Line by Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: 2011 PPP: % data is updated yearly, averaging 0.000 % from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2010, with 1 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.000 % in 2010 and a record low of 0.000 % in 2010. Australia Proportion of Population Pushed Below the $3.10: Poverty Line by Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: 2011 PPP: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Proportion of population pushed below the $3.10 ($ 2011 PPP) poverty line by out-of-pocket health care expenditure, expressed as a percentage of a total population of a country; ; Wagstaff et al. Progress on Impoverishing Health Spending: Results for 122 Countries. A Retrospective Observational Study, Lancet Global Health 2017.; Weighted average;

Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at $3.20 a Day: 2011 PPP: % of Population data was reported at 0.700 % in 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.500 % for 2016. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at $3.20 a Day: 2011 PPP: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 0.850 % from Dec 1981 (Median) to 2018, with 12 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.300 % in 1985 and a record low of 0.500 % in 2016. Australia Poverty Headcount Ratio at $3.20 a Day: 2011 PPP: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $3.20 a day at 2011 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.; ; World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from around 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

The Australian Standard of Living Study was designed to develop indicators of the standard of living in Australia that would allow better comparisons over time, and with other countries, than was previously possible. The study aimed to avoid the assumption that a poverty threshold can be adequately defined in terms of current (weekly or annual) income. The survey makes use of direct measures of standard of living such as housing, nourishment, transport and clothing, rather than indirect measures such as income which only indicate capacity to achieve a specified standard of living. The approach is based on the Level of Living Studies, a method of social accounting which has been used in Scandinavia since the 1960s. The survey includes self-assessment of financial well-being, money-saving behaviours, capacity to raise money, assets, debts, financial assistance from parents, health and health expenses, contact with relatives, marital history, expenditure for children, housing arrangements, work hours, income, leisure activities, social support, and life satisfaction. Background variables include parents' birthplace, parents' education level, parents' occupation, number of children, marital status, spouse's occupation, and respondent's education, qualifications, and employment history.

The principal aim of this study was to measure the extent and nature of poverty due to inadequate income, and the relationship between the income of a family and its normal needs. The study surveyed persons from income units in the Melbourne metropolitan area, from a sample stratified to increase the probability of selecting families in poverty. The questionnaire covered the following areas: the number of persons in the household and the type of accommodation; the sharing of facilities with other households; occupancy status; amount of rent or mortgage instalments; household composition; the identity of the income unit head; and the number of dependent children, their age and sex. For the head of the income unit, information was collected on age, marital status, birthplace, year of arrival in Australia, employment of self and wife, work status, qualifications and amount of time off work and reasons in the last year. Income questions covered general income level of the income unit; standard and overtime earnings of the income unit head; and income for both the income unit head and wife from pensions, superannuation, scholarships, and professional boarders; any income earned by school pupils and infants in the income unit; child endowment; dividends and income from property; any other sources of income, including that from family boarders. Information was also collected on pensioner status; membership of hospital or medical benefits organisations; retirement provisions; and amount of superannuation or insurance paid each week.

Australia Increase in Poverty Gap at $1.90: Poverty Line Due To Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: 2011 PPP: % of Poverty Line data was reported at 0.000 % in 2010. Australia Increase in Poverty Gap at $1.90: Poverty Line Due To Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: 2011 PPP: % of Poverty Line data is updated yearly, averaging 0.000 % from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2010, with 1 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.000 % in 2010 and a record low of 0.000 % in 2010. Australia Increase in Poverty Gap at $1.90: Poverty Line Due To Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditure: 2011 PPP: % of Poverty Line data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Australia – Table AU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Increase in poverty gap at $1.90 ($ 2011 PPP) poverty line due to out-of-pocket health care expenditure, as a percentage of the $1.90 poverty line. The poverty gap increase due to out-of-pocket health spending is one way to measure how much out-of-pocket health spending pushes people below or further below the poverty line (the difference in the poverty gap due to out-of-pocket health spending being included or excluded from the measure of household welfare). This difference corresponds to the total out-of-pocket health spending for households that are already below the poverty line, to the amount that exceeds the shortfall between the poverty line and total consumption for households that are impoverished by out-of-pocket health spending and to zero for households whose consumption is above the poverty line after accounting for out-of-pocket health spending.;World Health Organization and World Bank. 2019. Global Monitoring Report on Financial Protection in Health 2019. NOTE: This indicator has been discontinued as of December 2021. Please see the following indicators: SH.UHC.FBP1.ZS, SH.UHC.FBP2.ZS, SH.UHC.FBP1.TO and SH.UHC.FBP2.TO.;Weighted average;

This multipurpose survey measures a wide range of variables of interest in sociology, political science, and labor economics. It is similar to national social surveys conducted regularly in the United States, Britain, and West Germany, and much of the data are directly comparable. The questionnaire covers attitudes toward a broad range of topics, including government expenditures, taxation, inflation, crime, poverty, women and careers, migrants, political figures, and confidence in institutions such as banks and police. Other questions relate to the respondent's personal feelings about life, health, religion, moral issues, and family relationships. Political and economic data provided include party preference and voting history, income, and occupation. Additional background variables are available on education, birthplace, ethnic origin, religion, age, sex, location and size of town of residence, marital status, and union membership.

Characteristics of class obtained in adolescents aged 11–17 in Australia.

Abstract

In an environment where the Bank must demonstrate its impact and value, it is critical that the institution collects and tracks empirical data on how its work is perceived by clients, partners and other stakeholders in our client countries.

The Country Opinion Survey Program was scaled up in order to: - Annually assess perceptions of the World Bank among key stakeholders in a representative sample of client countries; - Track these opinions over time, representative of: regions, stakeholders, country lending levels, country income/size levels, etc. - Inform strategy and decision making: apply findings to challenges to ensure real time response at several levels: corporate, regional, country - Obtain systematic feedback from stakeholders regarding: • The general environment in their country; • Value of the World Bank in their country; • World Bank's presence (work, relationships, etc.); • World Bank's future role in their country. - Create a feedback loop that allows data to be shared with stakeholders.

Geographic coverage

The data from the 29 country surveys were combined in this review. Although individual countries are not specified, each country was designated as part of a particular region: Africa (AFR), East Asia (EAP), Europe/Central Asia (ECA), Latin America (LAC), Middle East/North Africa (MNA), and South Asia (SAR).

Analysis unit

Client Country

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

In FY 2012 (July 2011 to July 1, 2012), 15,029 stakeholders of the World Bank in 29 different countries were invited to provide their opinions on the Bank's assistance to the country by participating in a country survey. Participants in these surveys were drawn from among senior government officials (from the office of the Prime Minister, President, Minister, Parliamentarian; i.e., elected officials), staff of ministries (employees of ministries, ministerial departments, or implementation agencies, and government officials; i.e., non-elected government officials, and those attached to agencies implementing Bank-supported projects), consultants/contractors working on World Bank-supported projects/programs; project management units (PMUs) overseeing implementation of a project; local government officials or staff, bilateral and multilateral agency staff, private sector organizations, private foundations; the financial sector/private banks; non-government organizations (NGOs, including CBOs), the media, independent government institutions (e.g., regulatory agencies, central banks), trade unions, faith-based groups, members of academia or research institutes, and members of the judiciary.

Mode of data collection

Mail Questionnaire [mail]

Research instrument

The Questionnaire consists of the following sections:

A. General Issues facing a country: Respondents were asked to indicate whether the country is headed in the right direction, what they thought were the top three most important development priorities, and which areas would contribute most to reducing poverty and generating economic growth in the country.

B. Overall Attitudes toward the World Bank: Respondents were asked to rate their familiarity with the World Bank, the Bank's effectiveness in the country, the extent to which the Bank meets the country's needs for knowledge services and financial instruments, and the extent to which the Bank should seek or does seek to influence the global development agenda. Respondents were also asked to rate their agreement with various statements regarding the Bank's work and the extent to which the Bank is an effective development partner. Furthermore, respondents were asked to indicate the sectoral areas on which it would be most productive for the Bank to focus its resources, the Bank's greatest values and greatest weaknesses in its work, the most and least effective instruments in helping to reduce poverty in the country, with which groups the Bank should collaborate more, and to what reasons respondents attributed failed or slow reform efforts.

C. World Bank Effectiveness and Results: Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the Bank's work helps achieve sustainable development results in the country, and the Bank's level of effectiveness across thirty-five development areas, such as economic growth, public sector governance, basic infrastructure, social protection, and others.

D. The World Bank's Knowledge: Respondents were asked to indicate the areas on which the Bank should focus its research efforts, and to rate the effectiveness and quality of the Bank's knowledge/research, including how significant of a contribution it makes to development results, its technical quality, and the Bank's effectiveness at providing linkage to non-Bank expertise.

E. Working with the World Bank: Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements regarding working with the Bank, such as the World Bank's "Safeguard Policy" requirements being reasonable, the Bank imposing reasonable conditions on its lending, disbursing funds promptly, and increasing the country's institutional capacity.

F. The Future Role of the World Bank in the country: Respondents were asked to rate how significant a role the Bank should play in the country's development in the near future, and to indicate what the Bank should do to make itself of greater value in the country.

G. Communication and Information Sharing: Respondents were asked to indicate where they get information about economic and social development issues, how they prefer to receive information from the Bank, their access to the Internet, and their usage and evaluation of the Bank's websites. Respondents were asked about their awareness of the Bank's Access to Information policy, past information requests from the Bank, and their level of agreement that they use more data from the World Bank as a result of the Bank's Open Data policy. Respondents were also asked to indicate their level of agreement that they know how to find information from the Bank and that the Bank is responsive to information requests.

H. Background Information: Respondents were asked to indicate their current position, specialization, whether they professionally collaborate with the World Bank, their exposure to the Bank in the country, and their geographic location.

Response rate

A total of 7,142 stakeholders (48% response rate) participated and are part of this review.