Luxembourg stands out as the European leader in quality of life for 2025, achieving a score of 220 on the Quality of Life Index. The Netherlands follows closely behind with 211 points, while Albania and Ukraine rank at the bottom with scores of 104 and 115 respectively. This index provides a thorough assessment of living conditions across Europe, reflecting various factors that shape the overall well-being of populations and extending beyond purely economic metrics. Understanding the quality of life index The quality of life index is a multifaceted measure that incorporates factors such as purchasing power, pollution levels, housing affordability, cost of living, safety, healthcare quality, traffic conditions, and climate, to measure the overall quality of life of a Country. Higher overall index scores indicate better living conditions. However, in subindexes such as pollution, cost of living, and traffic commute time, lower values correspond to improved quality of life. Challenges affecting life satisfaction Despite the fact that European countries register high levels of life quality by for example leading the ranking of happiest countries in the world, life satisfaction across the European Union has been on a downward trend since 2018. The EU's overall life satisfaction score dropped from 7.3 out of 10 in 2018 to 7.1 in 2022. This decline can be attributed to various factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and economic challenges such as high inflation. Rising housing costs, in particular, have emerged as a critical concern, significantly affecting quality of life. This issue has played a central role in shaping voter priorities for the European Parliamentary Elections in 2024 and becoming one of the most pressing challenges for Europeans, profoundly influencing both daily experiences and long-term well-being.

This statistic depicts the human development index (HDI) scoring of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 2018, by country. In that year, the United Arab Emirates achieved a score of *****, which ranked them among the countries with very high human development. All GCC countries, with an exception of Oman, have been ranked as having very high human development countries.

Quality of Life Index (higher is better) is an estimation of overall quality of life by using an empirical formula which takes into account purchasing power index (higher is better), pollution index (lower is better), house price to income ratio (lower is better), cost of living index (lower is better), safety index (higher is better), health care index (higher is better), traffic commute time index (lower is better) and climate index (higher is better).

Current formula (written in Java programming language):

index.main = Math.max(0, 100 + purchasingPowerInclRentIndex / 2.5 - (housePriceToIncomeRatio * 1.0) - costOfLivingIndex / 10 + safetyIndex / 2.0 + healthIndex / 2.5 - trafficTimeIndex / 2.0 - pollutionIndex * 2.0 / 3.0 + climateIndex / 3.0);

For details how purchasing power (including rent) index, pollution index, property price to income ratios, cost of living index, safety index, climate index, health index and traffic index are calculated please look up their respective pages.

Formulas used in the past

Formula used between June 2017 and Decembar 2017

We decided to decrease weight from costOfLivingIndex in this formula:

index.main = Math.max(0, 100 + purchasingPowerInclRentIndex / 2.5 - (housePriceToIncomeRatio * 1.0) - costOfLivingIndex / 5 + safetyIndex / 2.0 + healthIndex / 2.5 - trafficTimeIndex / 2.0 - pollutionIndex * 2.0 / 3.0 + climateIndex / 3.0);

The World Happiness 2017, which ranks 155 countries by their happiness levels, was released at the United Nations at an event celebrating International Day of Happiness on March 20th. The report continues to gain global recognition as governments, organizations and civil society increasingly use happiness indicators to inform their policy-making decisions. Leading experts across fields – economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health, public policy and more – describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations. The reports review the state of happiness in the world today and show how the new science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness.

The scores are based on answers to the main life evaluation question asked in the poll. This question, known as the Cantril ladder, asks respondents to think of a ladder with the best possible life for them being a 10 and the worst possible life being a 0 and to rate their own current lives on that scale. The scores are from nationally representative samples for 2017 and use the Gallup weights to make the estimates representative. The columns following the happiness score estimate the extent to which each of six factors – economic production, social support, life expectancy, freedom, absence of corruption, and generosity – contribute to making life evaluations higher in each country than they are in Dystopia, a hypothetical country that has values equal to the world’s lowest national averages for each of the six factors. They have no impact on the total score reported for each country, but they do explain why some countries rank higher than others.

Quality of life index, link: https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/indices_explained.jsp

Happiness store, link: https://www.kaggle.com/unsdsn/world-happiness/home

Abstract

The main objectives of the 2018/19 NLSS are: i) to provide critical information for production of a wide range of socio-economic and demographic indicators, including for benchmarking and monitoring of SDGs; ii) to monitor progress in population’s welfare; iii) to provide statistical evidence and measure the impact on households of current and anticipated government policies. In addition, the 2018/19 NLSS could be utilized to improve other non-survey statistical information, e.g. to determine and calibrate the contribution of final consumption expenditures of households to GDP; to update the weights and determine the basket for the national Consumer Price Index (CPI); to improve the methodology and dissemination of micro-economic and welfare statistics in Nigeria.

The 2018/19 NLSS collected a comprehensive and diverse set of socio-economic and demographic data pertaining to the basic needs and conditions under which households live on a day to day basis. The 2018/19 NLSS questionnaire includes wide-ranging modules, covering demographic indicators, education, health, labour, expenditures on food and non-food goods, non-farm enterprises, household assets and durables, access to safety nets, housing conditions, economic shocks, exposure to crime and farm production indicators.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals
• Communities

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The 2018/19 NLSS sample is designed to provide representative estimates for the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. By extension. The sample is also representative at the national and zonal levels. Although the sample is not explicitly stratified by urban and rural areas, it is possible to obtain urban and rural estimates from the NLSS data at the national level. At all stages, the relative proportion of urban and rural EAs as has been maintained.

Before designing the sample for the 2018/19 NLSS, the results from the 2009/10 HNLSS were analysed to extract the sampling properties (variance, design effect, etc.) and estimate the required sample size to reach a desired precision for poverty estimates in the 2018/19 NLSS.

EA SELECTION: The sampling frame for the 2018/19 NLSS was based on the national master sample developed by the NBS, referred to as the NISH2 (Nigeria Integrated Survey of Households 2). This master sample was based on the enumeration areas (EAs) defined for the 2006 Nigeria Census Housing and Population conducted by National Population Commission (NPopC). The NISH2 was developed by the NBS to use as a frame for surveys with state-level domains. NISH2 EAs were drawn from another master sample that NBS developed for surveys with LGA-level domains (referred to as the “LGA master sample”). The NISH2 contains 200 EAs per state composed of 20 replicates of 10 sample EAs for each state, selected systematically from the full LGA master sample. Since the 2018/19 NLSS required domains at the state-level, the NISH2 served as the sampling frame for the survey.

Since the NISH2 is composed of state-level replicates of 10 sample EAs, a total of 6 replicates were selected from the NISH2 for each state to provide a total sample of 60 EAs per state. The 6 replicates selected for the 2018/19 NLSS in each state were selected using random systematic sampling. This sampling procedure provides a similar distribution of the sample EAs within each state as if one systematic sample of 60 EAs had been selected directly from the census frame of EAs.

A fresh listing of households was conducted in the EAs selected for the 2018/19 NLSS. Throughout the course of the listing, 139 of the selected EAs (or about 6%) were not able to be listed by the field teams. The primary reason the teams were not able to conduct the listing in these EAs was due to security issues in the country. The fieldwork period of the 2018/19 NLSS saw events related to the insurgency in the north east of the country, clashes between farmers and herdsman, and roving groups of bandits. These events made it impossible for the interviewers to visit the EAs in the villages and areas affected by these conflict events. In addition to security issues, some EAs had been demolished or abandoned since the 2006 census was conducted. In order to not compromise the sample size and thus the statistical power of the estimates, it was decided to replace these 139 EAs. Additional EAs from the same state and sector were randomly selected from the remaining NISH2 EAs to replace each EA that could not be listed by the field teams. This necessary exclusion of conflict affected areas implies that the sample is representative of areas of Nigeria that were accessible during the 2018/19 NLSS fieldwork period. The sample will not reflect conditions in areas that were undergoing conflict at that time. This compromise was necessary to ensure the safety of interviewers.

HOUSEHOLD SELECTION: Following the listing, the 10 households to be interviewed were selected from the listed households. These households were selected systemically after sorting by the order in which the households were listed. This systematic sampling helped to ensure that the selected households were well dispersed across the EA and thereby limit the potential for clustering of the selected households within an EA.

Occasionally, interviewers would encounter selected households that were not able to be interviewed (e.g. due to migration, refusal, etc.). In order to preserve the sample size and statistical power, households that could not be interviewed were replaced with an additional randomly selected household from the EA. Replacement households had to be requested by the field teams on a case-by-case basis and the replacement household was sent by the CAPI managers from NBS headquarters. Interviewers were required to submit a record for each household that was replaced, and justification given for their replacement. These replaced households are included in the disseminated data. However, replacements were relatively rare with only 2% of sampled households not able to be interviewed and replaced.

Sampling deviation

Although a sample was initially drawn for Borno state, the ongoing insurgency in the state presented severe challenges in conducting the survey there. The situation in the state made it impossible for the field teams to reach large areas of the state without compromising their safety. Given this limitation it was clear that a representative sample for Borno was not possible. However, it was decided to proceed with conducting the survey in areas that the teams could access in order to collect some information on the parts of the state that were accessible.

The limited area that field staff could safely operate in in Borno necessitated an alternative sample selection process from the other states. The EA selection occurred in several stages. Initially, an attempt was made to limit the frame to selected LGAs that were considered accessible. However, after selection of the EAs from the identified LGAs, it was reported by the NBS listing teams that a large share of the selected EAs were not safe for them to visit. Therefore, an alternative approach was adopted that would better ensure the safety of the field team but compromise further the representativeness of the sample. First, the list of 788 EAs in the LGA master sample for Borno were reviewed by NBS staff in Borno and the EAs they deemed accessible were identified. The team identified 359 EAs (46%) that were accessible. These 359 EAs served as the frame for the Borno sample and 60 EAs were randomly selected from this frame. However, throughout the course of the NLSS fieldwork, additional insurgency related events occurred which resulted in 7 of the 60 EAs being inaccessible when they were to be visited. Unlike for the main sample, these EAs were not replaced. Therefore, 53 EAs were ultimately covered from the Borno sample. The listing and household selection process that followed was the same as for the rest of the states.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Two sets of questionnaires – household and community – were used to collect information in the NLSS2018/19. The Household Questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample. The Community Questionnaire was administered to the community to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

Household Questionnaire: The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; education; health; labour; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm income-generating activities; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; assets; information and communication technology; agriculture and land tenure; and other sources of household income.

Community Questionnaire: The Community Questionnaire solicits information on access to transported and infrastructure; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions and achievements; and local retail price information.

Cleaning operations

CAPI: The 2018/19 NLSS was conducted using the Survey Solutions Computer Assisted Person Interview (CAPI) platform. The Survey Solutions software was developed and maintained by the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) at the World Bank. Each interviewer and supervisor was given a tablet

Abstract

The Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS) is a collaborative project between the Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) and the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team. The objective of the LSMS-ISA is to collect multi-topic, household-level panel data with a special focus on improving agriculture statistics and generating a clearer understanding of the link between agriculture and other sectors of the economy. The project also aims to build capacity, share knowledge across countries, and improve survey methodologies and technology.

ESS is a long-term project to collect panel data. The project responds to the data needs of the country, given the dependence of a high percentage of households in agriculture activities in the country. The ESS collects information on household agricultural activities along with other information on the households like human capital, other economic activities, access to services and resources. The ability to follow the same households over time makes the ESS a new and powerful tool for studying and understanding the role of agriculture in household welfare over time as it allows analyses of how households add to their human and physical capital, how education affects earnings, and the role of government policies and programs on poverty, inter alia. The ESS is the first panel survey to be carried out by the CSA that links a multi-topic household questionnaire with detailed data on agriculture.

Geographic coverage

National Regional Urban and Rural

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Community

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame for the new ESS4 is based on the updated 2018 pre-census cartographic database of enumeration areas by CSA. The ESS4 sample is a two-stage stratified probability sample. The ESS4 EAs in rural areas are the subsample of the AgSS EA sample. That means, the first stage of sampling in the rural areas entailed selecting enumeration areas (i.e. the primary sampling units) using simple random sampling (SRS) from the sample of the 2018 AgSS enumeration areas (EAs). The first stage of sampling for urban areas is selecting EAs directly from the urban frame of EAs within each region using systematically with PPS. This is designed in way that automatically results in a proportional allocation of the urban sample by zone within each region. Following the selection of sample EAs, they are allocated by urban rural strata using power allocation which is happened to be closer to proportional allocation.

The second stage of sampling for the ESS4 is the selection of households to be surveyed in each sampled EA using systematic random sampling. From the rural EAs, 10 agricultural households are selected as a subsample of the households selected for the AgSS and 2 non-agricultural households are selected from the non-agriculture households list in that specific EA. The non-agriculture household selection follows the same sampling method i.e. systematic random sampling. One important issue to note in ESS4 sampling is that the total number of agriculture households per EA remains 10 even though there are less than 2 or no non-agriculture households are listed and sampled in that EA.

For urban areas, a total of 15 households are selected per EA regardless of the households’ economic activity. The households are selected using systematic random sampling from the total households listed in that specific EA. Table 3.2 presents the distribution of sample households for ESS4 by region, urban and rural stratum. A total of 7527 households are sampled for ESS4 based on the above sampling strategy.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The survey consisted of five questionnaires, similar with the questionnaires used during the previous rounds with revisions based on the results of the previous rounds as well as on identified areas of need for new data.

The household questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample; multiple modules in the household questionnaire were administered per eligible household members in the sample.

The community questionnaire was administered to a group of community members to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

The three agriculture questionnaires consisting of a post-planting agriculture questionnaire, post-harvest agriculture questionnaire and livestock questionnaire were administered to all household members (agriculture holders) who are engaged in agriculture activities. A holder is a person who exercises management control over the operations of the agricultural holdings and makes the major decisions regarding the utilization of the available resources. S/he has technical and economic responsibility for the holding. S/he may operate the holding directly as an owner or as a manager. Hence it is possible to have more than one holder in single sampled households. As a result we have administered more than one agriculture questionnaire in a single sampled household if the household has more than one holder.

Household questionnaire: The household questionnaire provides information on education; health (including anthropometric measurement for children); labor and time use; financial inclusion; assets ownership and user right; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm activities and entrepreneurship; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; physical and financial assets; credit; tax and transfer; and other sources of household income. Household location is geo-referenced in order to be able to later link the ESS data to other available geographic data sets (See Appendix 1 for discussion of the geo-data provided with the ESS).

Community questionnaire: The community questionnaire solicits information on infrastructure; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions and achievements; and local retail price information.

Agriculture questionnaire: The post-planting and post-harvest agriculture questionnaires focus on crop farming activities and solicit information on land ownership and use; land use and agriculture income tax; farm labor; inputs use; GPS land area measurement and coordinates of household fields; agriculture capital; irrigation; and crop harvest and utilization. The livestock questionnaire collects information on animal holdings and costs; and production, cost and sales of livestock by products.

Cleaning operations

Final data cleaning was carried out on all data files. Only errors that could be clearly and confidently fixed by the team were corrected; errors that had no clear fix were left in the datasets. Cleaning methods for these errors are left up to the data user.

Response rate

ESS4 planned to interview 7,527 households from 565 enumeration areas (EAs) (Rural 316 EAs and Urban 249 EAs). A total of 6770 households from 535 EAs were interviewed for both the agriculture and household modules. The household module was not implemented in 30 EAs due to security reasons (See the Basic Information Document for additional information on survey implementation).

SDG 1.2.1 - Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, by sex and age

Definition: The national poverty rate is the percentage of the total population living below the national poverty line. The rural poverty rate is the percentage of the rural population living below the national poverty line (or in cases where a separate, rural poverty line is used, the rural poverty line). Urban poverty rate is the percentage of the urban population living below the national poverty line (or in cases where a separate, urban poverty line is used, the urban poverty line).

Concepts: In assessing poverty in a given country, and how best to reduce poverty according to national definitions, one naturally focuses on a poverty line that is considered appropriate for that country. Poverty lines across countries vary in terms of their purchasing power, and they have a strong economic gradient, such that richer countries tend to adopt higher standards of living in defining poverty. Within a country, the cost of living is typically higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Some countries may have separate urban and rural poverty lines to represent different purchasing powers.

Further reading: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-01-02-01.pdf

Ecosystems:all

Importance for ecosystem restoration: Greater Inequalities of power and wealth lead to more environmental degradation (Boyce, 1994). Large differences in wealth, income, and land often lead to less effective community resource management and worse overall environmental incomes (UN, 1987 and IPBES, 2018). A reason for the relationship between poverty and degradation is that people, due to necessity, are forced to degrade land, and the degraded land has a further impact on poverty. Poverty is also more prevalent on land vulnerable to degradation and productivity (IPBES, 2018).

References:

Boyce, J. K. (1994). Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecological economics, 11(3), 169-178.

IPBES (2018):The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Montanarella, L., Scholes, R., and Brainich, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pages

United Nations. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. UN.

This dataset was created in order to document self-reported life evaluations among small-scale societies that exist on the fringes of mainstream industrialized socieities. The data were produced as part of the LICCI project, through fieldwork carried out by LICCI partners. The data include individual responses to a life satisfaction question, and household asset values. Data from Gallup World Poll and the World Values Survey are also included, as used for comparison. TABULAR DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION --------------------------------- 1. File name: LICCI_individual.csv Number of rows and columns: 2814,7 Variable list: Variable names: User, Site, village Description: identification of investigator and location Variable name: Well.being.general Description: numerical score for life satisfaction question Variable names: HH_Assets_US, HH_Assets_USD_capita Description: estimated value of representative assets in the household of respondent, total and per capita (accounting for number of household inhabitants) 2. File name: LICCI_bySite.csv Number of rows and columns: 19,8 Variable list: Variable names: Site, N Description: site name and number of respondents at the site Variable names: SWB_mean, SWB_SD Description: mean and standard deviation of life satisfaction score Variable names: HHAssets_USD_mean, HHAssets_USD_sd Description: Site mean and standard deviation of household asset value Variable names: PerCapAssets_USD_mean, PerCapAssets_USD_sd Description: Site mean and standard deviation of per capita asset value 3. File name: gallup_WVS_GDP_pk.csv Number of rows and columns: 146,8 Variable list: Variable name: Happiness Score, Whisker-high, Whisker-low Description: from Gallup World Poll as documented in World Happiness Report 2022. Variable name: GDP-PPP2017 Description: Gross Domestic Product per capita for year 2020 at PPP (constant 2017 international $). Accessed May 2022. Variable name: pk Description: Produced capital per capita for year 2018 (in 2018 US$) for available countries, as estimated by the World Bank (accessed February 2022). Variable names: WVS7_mean, WVS7_std Description: Results of Question 49 in the World Values Survey, Wave 7.

Using a multilevel modelling approach to analyse a novel dataset of academic publications at all business schools in 11 European countries, this paper finds that the influence of organisational- and country-level contextual factors on researchers varies considerably based on the type of institution and the development level of the country they are located in. At the organisational-level, we find that greater spatial connectivity–operationalised through proximity to nearby business schools, rail stations, and airports–is positively related to scientific research volume and public dissemination (news mentions). While this result is significant only for high-income countries (above EU-average 2018 GDP per capita), this is likely because the low-income countries (below EU-average 2018 GDP per capita) examined here lack a ‘critical mass’ of well-connected universities to generate observable agglomeration effects. At the country-level, the results indicate that in high-income countries, less prestigious schools benefit from higher rates of recent international immigration from any foreign country, providing a direct policy pathway for increasing research output for universities that aren’t already well-known enough to attract the most talented researchers. In low-income countries, recent immigration rates are even stronger predictors of research performance across all levels of institutional prestige; more open immigration policies would likely benefit research performance in these countries to an even greater extent. Finally, the paper’s results show that, in low-income countries, a composite measure of a country’s quality of life (including self-rated life satisfaction, health, working hours, and housing overcrowding) is positively related to research outcomes through its interaction with school prestige. This suggests that the lower a country’s quality of life, the more researchers are incentivised to produce higher levels of research output. While this may in part reflect the greater disparities inherent in these countries’ economic systems, it is noteworthy–and perhaps concerning–that we have observed a negative correlation between country-level quality of life and research performance in low-income countries, which is particularly felt by researchers at less prestigious institutions.

Inflation is generally defined as the continued increase in the average prices of goods and services in a given region. Following the extremely high global inflation experienced in the 1980s and 1990s, global inflation has been relatively stable since the turn of the millennium, usually hovering between three and five percent per year. There was a sharp increase in 2008 due to the global financial crisis now known as the Great Recession, but inflation was fairly stable throughout the 2010s, before the current inflation crisis began in 2021. Recent years Despite the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, the global inflation rate fell to 3.26 percent in the pandemic's first year, before rising to 4.66 percent in 2021. This increase came as the impact of supply chain delays began to take more of an effect on consumer prices, before the Russia-Ukraine war exacerbated this further. A series of compounding issues such as rising energy and food prices, fiscal instability in the wake of the pandemic, and consumer insecurity have created a new global recession, and global inflation in 2024 is estimated to have reached 5.76 percent. This is the highest annual increase in inflation since 1996. Venezuela Venezuela is the country with the highest individual inflation rate in the world, forecast at around 200 percent in 2022. While this is figure is over 100 times larger than the global average in most years, it actually marks a decrease in Venezuela's inflation rate, which had peaked at over 65,000 percent in 2018. Between 2016 and 2021, Venezuela experienced hyperinflation due to the government's excessive spending and printing of money in an attempt to curve its already-high inflation rate, and the wave of migrants that left the country resulted in one of the largest refugee crises in recent years. In addition to its economic problems, political instability and foreign sanctions pose further long-term problems for Venezuela. While hyperinflation may be coming to an end, it remains to be seen how much of an impact this will have on the economy, how living standards will change, and how many refugees may return in the coming years.

Abstract

The Ethiopia Socioeconomic Panel Survey (ESPS) is a collaborative project between the Ethiopian Statistical Service (ESS) and the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team. The objective of the LSMS-ISA is to collect multi-topic, household-level panel data with a special focus on improving agriculture statistics and generating a clearer understanding of the link between agriculture and other sectors of the economy. The project also aims to build capacity, share knowledge across countries, and improve survey methodologies and technology. ESPS is a long-term project to collect panel data. The project responds to the data needs of the country, given the dependence of a high percentage of households on agriculture activities in the country. The ESPS collects information on household agricultural activities along with other information on the households like human capital, other economic activities, and access to services and resources. The ability to follow the same households over time makes the ESPS a new and powerful tool for studying and understanding the role of agriculture in household welfare over time as it allows analyses of how households add to their human and physical capital, how education affects earnings, and the role of government policies and programs on poverty, inter alia. The ESPS is the first-panel survey to be carried out by the Ethiopian Statistical Service that links a multi-topic household questionnaire with detailed data on agriculture.

Geographic coverage

National Regional Urban and Rural

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Community

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame for the second phase ESPS panel survey is based on the updated 2018 pre-census cartographic database of enumeration areas by the Ethiopian Statistical Service (ESS). The sample is a two-stage stratified probability sample. The ESPS EAs in rural areas are the subsample of the AgSS EA sample. That means the first stage of sampling in the rural areas entailed selecting enumeration areas (i.e., the primary sampling units) using simple random sampling (SRS) from the sample of the 2018 AgSS enumeration areas (EAs). The first stage of sampling for urban areas is selecting EAs directly from the urban frame of EAs within each region using systematic PPS. This is designed to automatically result in a proportional allocation of the urban sample by zone within each region. Following the selection of sample EAs, they are allocated by urban rural strata using power allocation which is happened to be closer to proportional allocation.

The second stage of sampling is the selection of households to be surveyed in each sampled EA using systematic random sampling. From the rural EAs, 10 agricultural households are selected as a subsample of the households selected for the AgSS, and 2 non-agricultural households are selected from the non-agriculture households list in that specific EA. The non-agriculture household selection follows the same sampling method i.e., systematic random sampling. One important issue to note in ESPS sampling is that the total number of agriculture households per EA remains at 10 even though there are less than 2 or no non-agriculture households are listed and sampled in that EA. For urban areas, a total of 15 households are selected per EA regardless of the households’ economic activity. The households are selected using systematic random sampling from the total households listed in that specific EA.

The ESPS-5 kept all the ESPS-4 samples except for those in the Tigray region and a few other places. A more detailed description of the sample design is provided in Section 3 of the Basic Information Document provided under the Related Materials tab.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The ESPS-5 survey consisted of four questionnaires (household, community, post-planting, and post-harvest questionnaires), similar to those used in previous waves but revised based on the results of those waves and on the need for new data they revealed. The following new topics are included in ESPS-5:

a. Dietary Quality: This module collected information on the household’s consumption of specified food items.

b. Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES): In this round the survey has implemented FIES. The scale is based on the eight food insecurity experience questions on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale | Voices of the Hungry | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (fao.org).

c. Basic Agriculture Information: This module is designed to collect minimal agriculture information from households. It is primarily for urban households. However, it was also used for a few rural households where it was not possible to implement the full agriculture module due to security reasons and administered for urban households. It asked whether they had undertaken any agricultural activity, such as crop farming and tending livestock) in the last 12 months. For crop farming, the questions were on land tenure, crop type, input use, and production. For livestock there were also questions on their size and type, livestock products, and income from sales of livestock or livestock products.

d. Climate Risk Perception: This module was intended to elicit both rural and urban households perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes about different climate-related risks. It also asked where and how households were obtaining information on climate and weather-related events.

e. Agriculture Mechanization and Video-Based Agricultural Extension: The rural area community questionnaire covered these areas rural areas. On mechanization the questions related to the penetration, availability and accessibility of agricultural machinery. Communities were also asked if they had received video-based extension services.

Cleaning operations

Final data cleaning was carried out on all data files. Only errors that could be clearly and confidently fixed by the team were corrected; errors that had no clear fix were left in the datasets. Cleaning methods for these errors are left up to the data user.

Response rate

ESPS-5 planned to interview 7,527 households from 565 enumeration areas (EAs) (Rural 316 EAs and Urban 249 EAs). However, due to the security situation in northern Ethiopia and to a lesser extent in the western part of the country, only a total of 4999 households from 438 EAs were interviewed for both the agriculture and household modules. The security situation in northern parts of Ethiopia meant that, in Tigray, ESPS-5 did not cover any of the EAs and households previously sampled. In Afar, while 275 households in 44 EAs had been covered by both the ESPS-4 agriculture and household modules, in ESPS-5 only 252 households in 22 EAs were covered by both modules. During the fifth wave, security was also a problem in both the Amhara and Oromia regions, so there was a comparable reduction in the number of households and EAs covered there.

More detailed information is available in the BID.

Due to the recent hyperinflation crisis in Venezuela, the average inflation rate in Venezuela is estimated to be around 225 percent in 2026. However, this is well below the peak of 63,000 percent observed in 2018.What is hyperinflation?In short, hyperinflation is a very high inflation rate that accelerates quickly. It can be caused by a government printing huge amounts of new money to pay for its expenses. The subsequent rapid increase of prices causes the country’s currency to lose value and shortages in goods to occur. People then typically start hoarding goods, which become even more scarce and expensive, money becomes worthless, financial institutions go bankrupt, and eventually, the country’s economy collapses. The Venezuelan descent into hyperinflationIn Venezuela, the economic catastrophe began with government price controls and plummeting oil prices, which caused state-run oil companies to go bankrupt. The government then starting printing new money to cope, thus prices rose rapidly, unemployment increased, and GDP collapsed, all of which was exacerbated by international sanctions. Today, many Venezuelans are emigrating to find work and supplies elsewhere, and population growth is at a decade-low. Current president Nicolás Maduro does not seem inclined to steer away from his course of price controls and economic mismanagement, so the standard of living in the country is not expected to improve significantly anytime soon.

Abstract

Since 1992, Kenya has been a generous host of refugees and asylum seekers, a population which today exceeds 470,000 people. The Kakuma Refugee Camps have long been among the largest hosting sites, and have become even larger in recent years, with an estimated 67 percent of the current refugee population arriving in the past five years. In 2015, UNHCR, the Government of Kenya, and partners established Kalobeyei Settlement, located 40 kilometers north of Kakuma, to reduce the population burden on the other camps and facilitate a shift towards an area-based development model that addresses the longer term prospects of both refugees and the host community. The refugee population makes up a significant share of the local population (an estimated 40 percent at the district level) and economy, engendering both positive and negative impacts on local Kenyans. While Kenya has emerged as a leader in measuring the impacts of forced displacement, refugees are not systematically included in the national household surveys that serve as the primary tools for measuring and monitoring poverty, labor markets and other welfare indicators at a country-wide level. As a result, comparison of poverty and vulnerability between refugees, host communities and nationals remains difficult. Initiated jointly by UNHCR and the World Bank, this survey was designed to address these shortcomings and support the settlement's development framework, as well as the wider global vision laid out by the Global Refugee Compact and the Sustainable Development Goals. Data were collected in November 2018 to January 2019, covering about 6004 households.

Geographic coverage

Kalobeyei Settlement, Kenya

Analysis unit

Household and individual

Universe

All refugees living in Kalobeyei Settlement

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The objective of the survey was to cover all refugee households living in Kalobeyei. Data collection occurred concurrently with a UNHCR registration verification exercise. Registration records were updated for all households in the settlement. A systematic random sample was then selected for an extended SEP interview. Those who were not selected for the extended interview were administered a shorter, basic version of the questionnaire. For this survey, a stratified single-stage sample design was applied. The sample was implicitly stratified for the three villages in the settlement. For the Basic SEP, all households in the settlement are selected and the selection probability is 1. For the Extended SEP, a targeted sample size of 1500 households was required to obtain a 15 percent difference in the poverty rates of 2 groups in the sample at a confidence level of 95 percent and a power of 80 percent. To randomly select these households, a straight forward approach was used to select these households from registered proGres families before the exercise. Thus, households that received the extended SEP were randomly determined before the start of the survey using the tablet. The sample of the extended survey alone is representative and therefore sufficient for generating poverty estimates headline indicators for the population as a whole. The total sample size of households was 6,004 of which 1,102 received the extended SEP. The public file includes only those 1,102 sampled for the extended survey.

Sampling deviation

None

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The following sections are included: household roster, education, employment, household characteristics, assets, access, vulnerabilities, social cohesion, coping mechanism, consumption and expenditure.

Cleaning operations

The dataset presented here has undergone light checking, cleaning and restructuring (data may still contain errors) as well as anonymization (includes removal of direct identifiers and sensitive variables, recoding and local suppression).

Response rate

Both the Basic and the Extended SEP have a household non-response rate of about 2 percent, mainly due to the absence of an adult household member present at the time of the survey.

Abstract

THE CLEANED AND HARMONIZED VERSION OF THE SURVEY DATA PRODUCED AND PUBLISHED BY THE ECONOMIC RESEARCH FORUM REPRESENTS 50% OF THE ORIGINAL SURVEY DATA COLLECTED BY THE CENTRAL AGENCY FOR PUBLIC MOBILIZATION AND STATISTICS (CAPMAS)

The Household Income, Expenditure and Consumption Survey (HIECS) is of great importance among other household surveys conducted by statistical agencies in various countries around the world. This survey provides a large amount of data to rely on in measuring the living standards of households and individuals, as well as establishing databases that serve in measuring poverty, designing social assistance programs, and providing necessary weights to compile consumer price indices, considered to be an important indicator to assess inflation.

The First Survey that covered all the country governorates was carried out in 1958/1959 followed by a long series of similar surveys. The current survey, HIECS 2017/2018, is the Thirteenth in this long series. Starting 2008/2009, Household Income, Expenditure and Consumption Surveys were conducted each two years instead of five years. this would enable better tracking of the rapid changes in the level of the living standards of the Egyptian households.

CAPMAS started in 2010/2011 to follow a panel sample of around 40% of the total household sample size. The current survey is the fourth one to follow a panel sample. This procedure will provide the necessary data to extract accurate indicators on the status of the society. The CAPMAS also is pleased to disseminate the results of this survey to policy makers, researchers and scholarly to help in policy making and conducting development related researches and studies

The survey main objectives are:

• To identify expenditure levels and patterns of population as well as socio- economic and demographic differentials.

• To measure average household and per-capita expenditure for various expenditure items along with socio-economic correlates.

• To Measure the change in living standards and expenditure patterns and behavior for the individuals and households in the panel sample, previously surveyed in 2008/2009, for the first time during 12 months representing the survey period.

• To define percentage distribution of expenditure for various items used in compiling consumer price indices which is considered important indicator for measuring inflation.

• To estimate the quantities, values of commodities and services consumed by households during the survey period to determine the levels of consumption and estimate the current demand which is important to predict future demands.

• To define average household and per-capita income from different sources.

• To provide data necessary to measure standard of living for households and individuals. Poverty analysis and setting up a basis for social welfare assistance are highly dependent on the results of this survey.

• To provide essential data to measure elasticity which reflects the percentage change in expenditure for various commodity and service groups against the percentage change in total expenditure for the purpose of predicting the levels of expenditure and consumption for different commodity and service items in urban and rural areas.

• To provide data essential for comparing change in expenditure against change in income to measure income elasticity of expenditure.

• To study the relationships between demographic, geographical, housing characteristics of households and their income.

• To provide data necessary for national accounts especially in compiling inputs and outputs tables.

• To identify consumers behavior changes among socio-economic groups in urban and rural areas.

• To identify per capita food consumption and its main components of calories, proteins and fats according to its nutrition components and the levels of expenditure in both urban and rural areas.

• To identify the value of expenditure for food according to its sources, either from household production or not, in addition to household expenditure for non-food commodities and services.

• To identify distribution of households according to the possession of some appliances and equipments such as (cars, satellites, mobiles ,…etc) in urban and rural areas that enables measuring household wealth index.

• To identify the percentage distribution of income earners according to some background variables such as housing conditions, size of household and characteristics of head of household.

• To provide a time series of the most important data related to dominant standard of living from economic and social perspective. This will enable conducting comparisons based on the results of these time series. In addition to, the possibility of performing geographical comparisons.

The raw survey data provided by the Statistical Agency were cleaned and harmonized by the Economic Research Forum, in the context of a major project that started in 2009. During which extensive efforts have been exerted to acquire, clean, harmonize, preserve and disseminate micro data of existing household surveys in several Arab countries.

Geographic coverage

Covering a sample of urban and rural areas in all the governorates.

Analysis unit

1- Household/family. 2- Individual/person.

Universe

The survey covered a national sample of households and all individuals permanently residing in surveyed households.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

THE CLEANED AND HARMONIZED VERSION OF THE SURVEY DATA PRODUCED AND PUBLISHED BY THE ECONOMIC RESEARCH FORUM REPRESENTS 50% OF THE ORIGINAL SURVEY DATA COLLECTED BY THE CENTRAL AGENCY FOR PUBLIC MOBILIZATION AND STATISTICS (CAPMAS)

The sample of HIECS 2017/2018 is a self-weighted two-stage stratified cluster sample. The main elements of the sampling design are described in the following.

1- Sample Size The sample size is around 26 thousand households. It was distributed between urban and rural with the percentages of 45% and 55%, respectively.

2- Cluster size The cluster size is 20 households in all governorates.

3- Sample allocation in different governorates 45% of the survey sample was allocated to urban areas (12020 households) and the other 55% was allocated to rural areas (13780 households). The sample was distributed on urban/rural areas in different governorates proportionally with the household size A sample size of a minimum of 1000 households was allocated to each governorate to ensure accuracy of poverty indicators. Therefore, the sample size was increased in Port-Said, Suez, Ismailiya, kafr el-Sheikh, Damietta, Bani Suef, Fayoum, Qena, Luxor and Aswan, by compensation from other governorates where the sample size exceeds a 1000 households. All Frontier governorates were considered as one governorate.

4- Core Sample The core sample is the master sample of any household sample required to be pulled for the purpose of studying the properties of individuals and families. It is a large sample and distributed on urban and rural areas of all governorates. It is a representative sample for the individual characteristics of the Egyptian society. This sample was implemented in January 2010 and its size reached more than 1 million household selected from 5024 enumeration areas distributed on all governorates (urban/rural) proportionally with the sample size (the enumeration area size is around 200 households). The core sample is the sampling frame from which the samples for the surveys conducted by CAPMAS are pulled, such as the Labor Force Surveys, Income, Expenditure And Consumption Survey, Household Urban Migration Survey, ...etc, in addition to other samples that may be required for outsources.

A more detailed description of the different sampling stages and allocation of sample across governorates is provided in the Methodology document available among external resources in Arabic.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Three different questionnaires have been designed as following:

1- Expenditure and Consumption Questionnaire. 2- Assisting questionnaire. 3- Income Questionnaire.

In designing the questionnaires of expenditure, consumption and income, we were taking into our consideration the following: - Using the recent concepts and definitions of International Labor Organization approved in the International Convention of Labor Statisticians held in Geneva, 2003. - Using the recent Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose (COICOP). - Using more than one approach of expenditure measurement to serve many purposes of the survey.

A brief description of each questionnaire is given next:

----> 1- Expenditure and Consumption Questionnaire This questionnaire comprises 14 tables in addition to identification and geographic data of household on the cover page. The questionnaire is divided into two main sections.

Section one: Household schedule and other information, it includes: - Demographic characteristics and basic data for all household individuals consisting of 25 questions for every person. - Members of household who are currently working abroad. - The household ration card. - The main outlets that provide food and beverage. - Domestic and foreign tourism. - The housing conditions including 16 questions. - Household ownership of means of transportation, communication and domestic appliances. - Date of purchase, status at purchase, purchase value and current imputed value of the household possessed appliances and means of transportation. - The Duration since the household was established - The main outlet

Abstract

To facilitate the use of data collected through the high-frequency phone surveys on COVID-19, the Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) team has created the harmonized datafiles using two household surveys: 1) the country’ latest face-to-face survey which has become the sample frame for the phone survey, and 2) the country’s high-frequency phone survey on COVID-19.

The LSMS team has extracted and harmonized variables from these surveys, based on the harmonized definitions and ensuring the same variable names. These variables include demography as well as housing, household consumption expenditure, food security, and agriculture. Inevitably, many of the original variables are collected using questions that are asked differently. The harmonized datafiles include the best available variables with harmonized definitions.

Two harmonized datafiles are prepared for each survey. The two datafiles are: 1. HH: This datafile contains household-level variables. The information include basic household characterizes, housing, water and sanitation, asset ownership, consumption expenditure, consumption quintile, food security, livestock ownership. It also contains information on agricultural activities such as crop cultivation, use of organic and inorganic fertilizer, hired labor, use of tractor and crop sales. 2. IND: This datafile contains individual-level variables. It includes basic characteristics of individuals such as age, sex, marital status, disability status, literacy, education and work.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

See “Ethiopia - Socioeconomic Survey 2018-2019” and “Ethiopia - COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey of Households 2020” available in the Microdata Library for details.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Cleaning operations

Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS) 2018-2019 and Ethiopia COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey of Households (HFPS) 2020 data were harmonized following the harmonization guidelines (see “Harmonized Datafiles and Variables for High-Frequency Phone Surveys on COVID-19” for more details).

The high-frequency phone survey on COVID-19 has multiple rounds of data collection. When variables are extracted from multiple rounds of the survey, the originating round of the survey is noted with “_rX” in the variable name, where X represents the number of the round. For example, a variable with “_r3” presents that the variable was extracted from Round 3 of the high-frequency phone survey. Round 0 refers to the country’s latest face-to-face survey which has become the sample frame for the high-frequency phone surveys on COVID-19. When the variables are without “_rX”, they were extracted from Round 0.

Response rate

See “Ethiopia - Socioeconomic Survey 2018-2019” and “Ethiopia - COVID-19 High Frequency Phone Survey of Households 2020” available in the Microdata Library for details.

Context

This dataset is a copy of the 2017 Human Freedom Index dataset released by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. The dataset uses 2015 data and index-ranks human freedoms in various countries around the world. For more on the Cato Institute, which funded this study, refer to its Wikipedia article.

Content

The data contains a sequence of hierarchical related metrics rated from 0 to 10, with each record corresponding with a country. The data itself in original form can be found at https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index, alongside an almost 400-page report.

To see the list of metrics refer here.

Acknowledgements

This dataset was produced by the Cato Institute.

Inspiration

I have uploaded this dataset in the potential to find use with the Kiva microfinance data. Kiva involves lending to poor entrepreneurs and folk around the world who have difficulty accessing credit. Greater personal and economic freedom leads to greater personal and market growth, allowing entrepreneurs to grow themselves and others into achieving higher standards of living.

Estonia and Lithuania had the highest Digital Quality of Life index in Central and Eastern Europe in 2023, at **** and *** points on a scale from zero to one, respectively. In comparison, Bosnia and Herzegovina scored the lowest among the presented CEE countries. The index ranks the quality of digital wellbeing in a country.

China poverty rate for 2021 was 21.00%, a 8.5% decline from 2020.

<ul style='margin-top:20px;'>

<li>China poverty rate for 2020 was <strong>29.50%</strong>, a <strong>0.6% increase</strong> from 2019.</li>
<li>China poverty rate for 2019 was <strong>28.90%</strong>, a <strong>3.3% decline</strong> from 2018.</li>
<li>China poverty rate for 2018 was <strong>32.20%</strong>, a <strong>4.1% decline</strong> from 2017.</li>
</ul>Poverty headcount ratio at $5.50 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $5.50 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.

Romania has made impressive strides in raising its economic performance over the past two decades but continues to face substantive economic, inclusion and sustainability challenges. Over the past couple of decades, Romania has achieved impressive economic progress, transitioning to a market-based economic model, acceding to the European Union (EU) in 2007 and reaching high income status. Between 2000 and 2022, living standards (real GDP per capita in PPP) more than doubled (from US$12,177 to US$32,738). From 2015 to 2020, the share of Romanians living below the upper. The Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) of 2018 summarized the overarching narrative of the country’s socio-economic development as ‘A Tale of Two Romanias'. This continues today: one urban, dynamic, and integrated with the EU; the other rural, poor, and isolated. A range of structural challenges impact Romania’s prospects for economically sustainable growth and inclusion, while also hampering the transition to a greener economic model, with a clear need for continued structural reforms going forward. Challenges related to institutional capacity; ability to absorb and deploy funds; and persistent structural challenges will need to be addressed to unlock the opportunities that the green transition can offer.

Out of all 50 states, New York had the highest per-capita real gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024, at 92,341 U.S. dollars, followed closely by Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest per-capita real GDP, at 41,603 U.S. dollars. While not a state, the District of Columbia had a per capita GDP of more than 210,780 U.S. dollars. What is real GDP? A country’s real GDP is a measure that shows the value of the goods and services produced by an economy and is adjusted for inflation. The real GDP of a country helps economists to see the health of a country’s economy and its standard of living. Downturns in GDP growth can indicate financial difficulties, such as the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, when the U.S. GDP decreased by 2.5 percent. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on U.S. GDP, shrinking the economy 2.8 percent. The U.S. economy rebounded in 2021, however, growing by nearly six percent. Why real GDP per capita matters Real GDP per capita takes the GDP of a country, state, or metropolitan area and divides it by the number of people in that area. Some argue that per-capita GDP is more important than the GDP of a country, as it is a good indicator of whether or not the country’s population is getting wealthier, thus increasing the standard of living in that area. The best measure of standard of living when comparing across countries is thought to be GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) which uses the prices of specific goods to compare the absolute purchasing power of a countries currency.

Abstract

The Afrobarometer is a comparative series of public attitude surveys that assess African citizen's attitudes to democracy and governance, markets, and civil society, among other topics. The surveys have been undertaken at periodic intervals since 1999. The Afrobarometer's coverage has increased over time. Round 1 (1999-2001) initially covered 7 countries and was later extended to 12 countries. Round 2 (2002-2004) surveyed citizens in 16 countries. Round 3 (2005-2006) 18 countries, Round 4 (2008) 20 countries, Round 5 (2011-2013) 34 countries, Round 6 (2014-2015) 36 countries, and Round 7 (2016-2018) 34 countries. The survey covered 34 countries in Round 8 (2019-2021).

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Individual

Universe

Citizens aged 18 years and above excluding those living in institutionalized buildings.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Afrobarometer uses national probability samples designed to meet the following criteria. Samples are designed to generate a sample that is a representative cross-section of all citizens of voting age in a given country. The goal is to give every adult citizen an equal and known chance of being selected for an interview. They achieve this by:

• using random selection methods at every stage of sampling; • sampling at all stages with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible to ensure that larger (i.e., more populated) geographic units have a proportionally greater probability of being chosen into the sample.

The sampling universe normally includes all citizens age 18 and older. As a standard practice, we exclude people living in institutionalized settings, such as students in dormitories, patients in hospitals, and persons in prisons or nursing homes. Occasionally, we must also exclude people living in areas determined to be inaccessible due to conflict or insecurity. Any such exclusion is noted in the technical information report (TIR) that accompanies each data set.

Sample size and design Samples usually include either 1,200 or 2,400 cases. A randomly selected sample of n=1200 cases allows inferences to national adult populations with a margin of sampling error of no more than +/-2.8% with a confidence level of 95 percent. With a sample size of n=2400, the margin of error decreases to +/-2.0% at 95 percent confidence level.

The sample design is a clustered, stratified, multi-stage, area probability sample. Specifically, we first stratify the sample according to the main sub-national unit of government (state, province, region, etc.) and by urban or rural location.

Area stratification reduces the likelihood that distinctive ethnic or language groups are left out of the sample. Afrobarometer occasionally purposely oversamples certain populations that are politically significant within a country to ensure that the size of the sub-sample is large enough to be analysed. Any oversamples is noted in the TIR.

Sample stages Samples are drawn in either four or five stages:

Stage 1: In rural areas only, the first stage is to draw secondary sampling units (SSUs). SSUs are not used in urban areas, and in some countries they are not used in rural areas. See the TIR that accompanies each data set for specific details on the sample in any given country. Stage 2: We randomly select primary sampling units (PSU). Stage 3: We then randomly select sampling start points. Stage 4: Interviewers then randomly select households. Stage 5: Within the household, the interviewer randomly selects an individual respondent. Each interviewer alternates in each household between interviewing a man and interviewing a woman to ensure gender balance in the sample.

To keep the costs and logistics of fieldwork within manageable limits, eight interviews are clustered within each selected PSU.

Gabon - Sample size: 1,200 - Sampling Frame: Recensement Général de la Population et des Logements (RGPL) de 2013 réalisée par la Direction Générale de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques - Sample design: Representative, random, clustered, stratified, multi-stage area probability sample - Stratification: Province, Department, and urban-rural location - Stages: Primary sampling unit (PSU), start points, households, respondents - PSU selection: Probability Proportionate to Population Size (PPPS) - Cluster size: 8 households per PSU - Household selection: Randomly selected start points, followed by walk pattern using 5/10 interval - Respondent selection: Gender quota to be achieved by alternating interviews between men and women; potential respondents (i.e. household members) of the appropriate gender are listed, then the computer chooses the individual random

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The Round 8 questionnaire has been developed by the Questionnaire Committee after reviewing the findings and feedback obtained in previous Rounds, and securing input on preferred new topics from a host of donors, analysts, and users of the data.

The questionnaire consists of three parts: 1. Part 1 captures the steps for selecting households and respondents, and includes the introduction to the respondent and (pp.1-4). This section should be filled in by the Fieldworker. 2. Part 2 covers the core attitudinal and demographic questions that are asked by the Fieldworker and answered by the Respondent (Q1 – Q100). 3. Part 3 includes contextual questions about the setting and atmosphere of the interview, and collects information on the Fieldworker. This section is completed by the Fieldworker (Q101 – Q123).

Response rate

Outcome rates: - Contact rate: 99% - Cooperation rate: 92% - Refusal rate: 3% - Response rate: 91%

Sampling error estimates

+/- 3% at 95% confidence level