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.

All the 20 countries with the highest poverty rates in the world are located in Africa. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Mozambique were the two countries with the highest share of people living on less than 2.15 U.S. dollars a day when adjusting for 2017 Purchasing Power Parities (PPP), both at over 70 percent.

All the 20 countries with the highest poverty gaps worldwide at 3.65 U.S. dollars a day in 2017 Purchasing Power Parities were located in Africa. Democratic Republic of Congo had the most severe poverty levels at 59 percent. Moreover, most of the countries with the highest poverty gaps are also the countries with the highest poverty rates in the world. Whereas the poverty rate only measures the share of the population living below the poverty line, the poverty gap measures the severity of the poverty.

Graph and download economic data for Estimated Percent of People of All Ages in Poverty for United States (PPAAUS00000A156NCEN) from 1989 to 2023 about percent, child, poverty, and USA.

Among the OECD countries, Costa Rica had the highest share of children living in poverty, reaching 28.5 percent in 2022. Türkiye followed with a share of 22 percent of children living in poverty, while 20.5 percent of children in Spain, Chile, and the United States did the same. On the other hand, only three percent of children in Finland were living in poverty.

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.

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.

This poverty rate data shows what percentage of the measured population* falls below the poverty line. Poverty is closely related to income: different “poverty thresholds” are in place for different sizes and types of household. A family or individual is considered to be below the poverty line if that family or individual’s income falls below their relevant poverty threshold. For more information on how poverty is measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (the source for this indicator’s data), visit the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty webpage.

The poverty rate is an important piece of information when evaluating an area’s economic health and well-being. The poverty rate can also be illustrative when considered in the contexts of other indicators and categories. As a piece of data, it is too important and too useful to omit from any indicator set.

The poverty rate for all individuals in the measured population in Champaign County has hovered around roughly 20% since 2005. However, it reached its lowest rate in 2021 at 14.9%, and its second lowest rate in 2023 at 16.3%. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) data shows fluctuations between years, given their margins of error, none of the differences between consecutive years’ estimates are statistically significant, making it impossible to identify a trend.

Poverty rate data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Age.

*According to the U.S. Census Bureau document “How Poverty is Calculated in the ACS," poverty status is calculated for everyone but those in the following groups: “people living in institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes), people in military barracks, people in college dormitories, living situations without conventional housing, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old."

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (25 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (16 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

Honduras was the country in Latin America with the highest share of population living on less than 3.20 U.S. dollars per day. The Central American nation had 26.4 percent of its population living on less than 3.20 U.S. dollars a day, while Colombia came second highest with 14 percent. On the other hand, Uruguay had only 0.8 percent of poverty headcount ratio, featured as the lowest share in the region.

Egypt EG: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data was reported at 27.800 % in 2015. This records an increase from the previous number of 26.300 % for 2012. Egypt EG: Poverty Headcount Ratio at National Poverty Lines: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 23.400 % from Dec 1999 (Median) to 2015, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 27.800 % in 2015 and a record low of 16.700 % in 1999. Egypt EG: 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 Egypt – Table EG.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. National poverty headcount ratio is the percentage of the population living below the national poverty lines. National estimates are based on population-weighted subgroup estimates from household surveys.; ; World Bank, Global Poverty Working Group. 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.

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.

In FY 2013, 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 41 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 2013 (July 2012 to July 1, 2013), 26,014 stakeholders of the World Bank in 41 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 9,279 stakeholders (36% response rate) participated and are part of this review.

Nearly 7 of 10 Somalis live in poverty, making Somalia one of the poorest countries in Sub-saharan Africa. About 69 percent of the population lived in poverty in 2017 as compared to 71 percent in 2019. Somalia has the sixth highest poverty rate in the region, only after the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Madagascar, Burundi and South Sudan. Poverty incidence is lower in other urban areas, excluding Mogadishu, compared to nomadic households, IDPs in settlements, and those in rural areas and Mogadishu. Nearly half of the population is not even able to meet the average consumption of food items, confirming the dire living standards of most Somalis.

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 46.900 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 46.400 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 46.000 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 46.900 % in 2016 and a record low of 41.200 % in 1979. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

United States US: Income Share Held by Lowest 10% data was reported at 1.700 % in 2016. This stayed constant from the previous number of 1.700 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Lowest 10% data is updated yearly, averaging 1.800 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2.300 % in 1979 and a record low of 1.700 % in 2016. United States US: Income Share Held by Lowest 10% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data was reported at 30.600 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 30.100 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data is updated yearly, averaging 30.100 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 30.600 % in 2016 and a record low of 25.300 % in 1979. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Considering the latest available data, Mozambique had the highest share of the population living in extreme poverty among the selected African countries, corresponding to around 74.4 percent in 2019. Malawi, Central African Republic, Niger, and Tanzania followed with approximately 70.1, 65.7, 50.6, and 44.9 percent between 2018 and 2021, respectively. The extreme poverty line was set at 2.15 U.S. dollars a day, taking into consideration Purchasing Power Parities (PPP).

Yemen YE: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 44.700 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 43.200 % for 2005. Yemen YE: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 43.200 % from Dec 1998 (Median) to 2014, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 44.700 % in 2014 and a record low of 42.400 % in 1998. Yemen YE: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Yemen – Table YE.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Goal 1End poverty in all its forms everywhereTarget 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a dayIndicator 1.1.1: Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural)SI_POV_DAY1: Proportion of population below international poverty line (%)SI_POV_EMP1: Employed population below international poverty line, by sex and age (%)Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitionsIndicator 1.2.1: Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, by sex and ageSI_POV_NAHC: Proportion of population living below the national poverty line (%)Indicator 1.2.2: Proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitionsSD_MDP_MUHC: Proportion of population living in multidimensional poverty (%)SD_MDP_ANDI: Average proportion of deprivations for people multidimensionally poor (%)SD_MDP_MUHHC: Proportion of households living in multidimensional poverty (%)SD_MDP_CSMP: Proportion of children living in child-specific multidimensional poverty (%)Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerableIndicator 1.3.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems, by sex, distinguishing children, unemployed persons, older persons, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, newborns, work-injury victims and the poor and the vulnerableSI_COV_MATNL: [ILO] Proportion of mothers with newborns receiving maternity cash benefit (%)SI_COV_POOR: [ILO] Proportion of poor population receiving social assistance cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_SOCAST: [World Bank] Proportion of population covered by social assistance programs (%)SI_COV_SOCINS: [World Bank] Proportion of population covered by social insurance programs (%)SI_COV_CHLD: [ILO] Proportion of children/households receiving child/family cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_UEMP: [ILO] Proportion of unemployed persons receiving unemployment cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_VULN: [ILO] Proportion of vulnerable population receiving social assistance cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_WKINJRY: [ILO] Proportion of employed population covered in the event of work injury, by sex (%)SI_COV_BENFTS: [ILO] Proportion of population covered by at least one social protection benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_DISAB: [ILO] Proportion of population with severe disabilities receiving disability cash benefit, by sex (%)SI_COV_LMKT: [World Bank] Proportion of population covered by labour market programs (%)SI_COV_PENSN: [ILO] Proportion of population above statutory pensionable age receiving a pension, by sex (%)Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinanceIndicator 1.4.1: Proportion of population living in households with access to basic servicesSP_ACS_BSRVH2O: Proportion of population using basic drinking water services, by location (%)SP_ACS_BSRVSAN: Proportion of population using basic sanitation services, by location (%)Indicator 1.4.2: Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation, and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and type of tenureSP_LGL_LNDDOC: Proportion of people with legally recognized documentation of their rights to land out of total adult population, by sex (%)SP_LGL_LNDSEC: Proportion of people who perceive their rights to land as secure out of total adult population, by sex (%)SP_LGL_LNDSTR: Proportion of people with secure tenure rights to land out of total adult population, by sex (%)Target 1.5: By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disastersIndicator 1.5.1: Number of deaths, missing persons and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 populationVC_DSR_MISS: Number of missing persons due to disaster (number)VC_DSR_AFFCT: Number of people affected by disaster (number)VC_DSR_MORT: Number of deaths due to disaster (number)VC_DSR_MTMP: Number of deaths and missing persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population (number)VC_DSR_MMHN: Number of deaths and missing persons attributed to disasters (number)VC_DSR_DAFF: Number of directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population (number)VC_DSR_IJILN: Number of injured or ill people attributed to disasters (number)VC_DSR_PDAN: Number of people whose damaged dwellings were attributed to disasters (number)VC_DSR_PDYN: Number of people whose destroyed dwellings were attributed to disasters (number)VC_DSR_PDLN: Number of people whose livelihoods were disrupted or destroyed, attributed to disasters (number)Indicator 1.5.2: Direct economic loss attributed to disasters in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP)VC_DSR_GDPLS: Direct economic loss attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)VC_DSR_LSGP: Direct economic loss attributed to disasters relative to GDP (%)VC_DSR_AGLH: Direct agriculture loss attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)VC_DSR_HOLH: Direct economic loss in the housing sector attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)VC_DSR_CILN: Direct economic loss resulting from damaged or destroyed critical infrastructure attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)VC_DSR_CHLN: Direct economic loss to cultural heritage damaged or destroyed attributed to disasters (millions of current United States dollars)VC_DSR_DDPA: Direct economic loss to other damaged or destroyed productive assets attributed to disasters (current United States dollars)Indicator 1.5.3: Number of countries that adopt and implement national disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030SG_DSR_LGRGSR: Score of adoption and implementation of national DRR strategies in line with the Sendai FrameworkSG_DSR_SFDRR: Number of countries that reported having a National DRR Strategy which is aligned to the Sendai FrameworkIndicator 1.5.4: Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategiesSG_DSR_SILS: Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies (%)SG_DSR_SILN: Number of local governments that adopt and implement local DRR strategies in line with national strategies (number)SG_GOV_LOGV: Number of local governments (number)Target 1.a: Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensionsIndicator 1.a.1: Total official development assistance grants from all donors that focus on poverty reduction as a share of the recipient country’s gross national incomeDC_ODA_POVLG: Official development assistance grants for poverty reduction, by recipient countries (percentage of GNI)DC_ODA_POVDLG: Official development assistance grants for poverty reduction, by donor countries (percentage of GNI)DC_ODA_POVG: Official development assistance grants for poverty reduction (percentage of GNI)Indicator 1.a.2: Proportion of total government spending on essential services (education, health and social protection)SD_XPD_ESED: Proportion of total government spending on essential services, education (%)Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actionsIndicator 1.b.1: Pro-poor public social spending

The social assistance explorer contains a harmonised panel dataset of social assistance indicators spanning 2000-2015. It has been developed to support comparative research on emerging welfare institutions. Comparative analysis of social protection institutions in low and middle income countries is scarce. Yet social assistance accounts for most of the recent expansion of welfare institutions. The project collected data on programme design and objectives, institutionalisation, reach, and financial resources. Key indicators can be aggregated at country and region levels.

Since the turn of the century low and middle income countries have introduced or expanded programmes providing direct transfers to families in poverty or extreme poverty as a means of strengthening their capacity to exit poverty. The rationale underpinning these programmes is that stabilising and enhancing family income through transfers in cash and in kind will enable programme participants to improve their nutrition, ensure investment in children's schooling and health, and help overcome economic and social exclusion. The expansion of antipoverty transfer programmes has accelerated. Estimates suggest that around 1 billion people in developing countries reside with someone in receipt of a transfer. As would be expected, the spread of social assistance has been slower and more tentative in low income countries due to implementation and finance constraints and limited elite political support. Antipoverty transfer programmes in developing countries show large variation in design, effectiveness, scale, and objectives. In most countries, there are several interventions running alongside one another with diverse priorities and designs, and often targeting different groups. In many countries social public assistance programmes work alongside social insurance programmes for formal sector workers and humanitarian or emergency assistance. Social assistance focuses on groups in poverty, provides medium term support, and is budget-financed. The spread of social assistance in developing countries has revealed significant gaps in the knowledge, for example as regards their effectiveness, reach, and sustainability. Comparative analysis is essential to fill in these gaps and improve national, regional and global policy. For example, achieving a zero target for extreme poverty, as has been suggested in the context of the post-2015 international development agenda, would require effective and permanent institutions ensuring the benefits from economic growth reach the poorest. Social assistance is essential to achieving this goal. This research project focuses on improving research infrastructure on social assistance, in terms of concepts, indicators and data. This is urgently needed to support comparative analysis of emerging social assistance institutions. The project will identify indicators to assess social assistance programmes and will collect information on these for 2000 to 2015 for all developing countries. The database will be made available online to researchers and policy makers globally. As part of the project, the database will be analysed to examine patterns or configurations in social assistance programmes and institutions. Our interest is in identifying ideal types, broad features of social assistance programmes or institutions which enable reducing the large diversity of programmes and interventions to their core characteristics. These ideal types are social assistance regimes. Further analysis will test for potential combinations of political, demographic, economic and social factors linked to specific social assistance regimes. This analysis will allow us to examine what conditions can help explain the expansion of social assistance in developing countries; what factors influence the specific configuration of social assistance institutions in different countries and regions; and what conditions are needed for their effectiveness and sustainability. This research will throw light on the contribution of social assistance to the reduction of poverty and vulnerability and to economic and social development.

Mexico MX: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data was reported at 5.700 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 5.400 % for 2014. Mexico MX: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 4.500 % from Dec 1984 (Median) to 2016, with 15 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 5.700 % in 2016 and a record low of 3.900 % in 2000. Mexico MX: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Mexico – Table MX.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.