Inflation was the most worrying topic worldwide as of May 2025, with ********* of the respondents choosing that option. Crime and violence, as well as poverty and social inequality, followed behind. Moreover, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza, *** percent of the respondents were worried about military conflict between nations. Only *** percent were worried about the COVID-19 pandemic, which dominated the world after its outbreak in 2020. Global inflation and rising prices Inflation rates have spiked substantially since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. From 2020 to 2021, the worldwide inflation rate increased from *** percent to *** percent, and from 2021 to 2022, the rate increased sharply from *** percent to *** percent. While rates are predicted to fall by 2025, many are continuing to struggle with price increases on basic necessities. Poverty and global development Poverty and social inequality were the third most worrying issues for respondents. While poverty and inequality are still prominent, global poverty rates have been on a steady decline over the years. In 1994, ** percent of people in low-income countries and around one percent of people in high-income countries lived on less than 2.15 U.S. dollars per day. By 2018, this had fallen to almost ** percent of people in low-income countries and 0.6 percent in high-income countries. Moreover, fewer people globally are dying of preventable diseases, and people are living longer lives. Despite these aspects, issues such as wealth inequality have global prominence.

According to an April 2024 survey on climate change conducted in the United States, some ** percent of the respondents claimed they rarely or never discuss global warming with family and friends. Another ** percent reported that they often or occasionally discussed the topic.

The Global Welfare Dataset (GLOW) is a cross-national panel dataset that aims at facilitating comparative social policy research on the Global North and Global South. The database includes 381 variables on 61 countries from years between 1989 and 2015. The database has four main categories of data: welfare, development, economy and politics.The data is the result of an original data compilation assembled by using information from several international and domestic sources. Missing data was supplemented by domestic sources where available. We sourced data primarily from these international databases:Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity – ASPIRE (World Bank)Government Finance Statistics (International Monetary Fund)Social Expenditure Database – SOCX (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)Social Protection Statistics – ESPROSS (Eurostat)Social Security Inquiry (International Labour Organization)Social Security Programs Throughout the World (Social Security Administration)Statistics on Income and Living Conditions – EU-SILC (European Union)World Development Indicators (World Bank)However, much of the welfare data from these sources are not compatible between all country cases. We conducted an extensive review of the compatibility of the data and computed compatible figures where possible. Since the heart of this database is the provision of social assistance across a global sample, we applied the ASPIRE methodology in order to build comparable indicators across European and Emerging Market economies. Specifically, we constructed indicators of average per capita transfers and coverage rates for social assistance programs for all the country cases not included in the World Bank’s ASPIRE dataset (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom.)For details, please see:https://glow.ku.edu.tr/about

This Ipsos survey indicates that ** percent of respondents believed the most concerning environmental issue facing the world is climate change. Air pollution was the second most important environmental issue around the world, closely followed by the amount waste that is generated.

The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes towards European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology. This round of Eurobarometer surveys includes the standard modules and covers the following special topics: (1) globalization, (2) the financial and economic crisis, (3) social change and values in the EU, (4) the representation of regional and local public authorities in the EU, (5) competitiveness and decision making in the EU, (6) EU policy priorities, and (7) global challenges. Questions pertain to household financial situation, opinions on performance of the EU economy, national currency and the euro, taxation, unemployment, actions taken by the EU in response to the financial crisis, and attitudes towards globalization. Other questions address country identification, opinions of various EU policies, the economic recovery, important values for the EU and society, global threats, and climate change. Demographic and other background information includes age, gender, nationality, marital status, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, left-right political self-placement, household composition, ownership of a fixed or mobile telephone, difficulties in paying bills, level in society, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased its collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit: World Health Organization (WHO)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.125529863/7/2022 - Adjusted the rate of active cases calculation in the U.S. to reflect the rates of serious and severe cases due nearly completely dominant Omicron variant.6/24/2020 - Expanded Case Rates discussion to include fix on 6/23 for calculating active cases.6/22/2020 - Added Executive Summary and Subsequent Outbreaks sectionsRevisions on 6/10/2020 based on updated CDC reporting. This affects the estimate of active cases by revising the average duration of cases with hospital stays downward from 30 days to 25 days. The result shifted 76 U.S. counties out of Epidemic to Spreading trend and no change for national level trends.Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Correction on 6/1/2020Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Executive SummaryCOVID-19 Trends is a methodology for characterizing the current trend for places during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Each day we assign one of five trends: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, or End Stage to geographic areas to geographic areas based on the number of new cases, the number of active cases, the total population, and an algorithm (described below) that contextualize the most recent fourteen days with the overall COVID-19 case history. Currently we analyze the countries of the world and the U.S. Counties. The purpose is to give policymakers, citizens, and analysts a fact-based data driven sense for the direction each place is currently going. When a place has the initial cases, they are assigned Emergent, and if that place controls the rate of new cases, they can move directly to Controlled, and even to End Stage in a short time. However, if the reporting or measures to curtail spread are not adequate and significant numbers of new cases continue, they are assigned to Spreading, and in cases where the spread is clearly uncontrolled, Epidemic trend.We analyze the data reported by Johns Hopkins University to produce the trends, and we report the rates of cases, spikes of new cases, the number of days since the last reported case, and number of deaths. We also make adjustments to the assignments based on population so rural areas are not assigned trends based solely on case rates, which can be quite high relative to local populations.Two key factors are not consistently known or available and should be taken into consideration with the assigned trend. First is the amount of resources, e.g., hospital beds, physicians, etc.that are currently available in each area. Second is the number of recoveries, which are often not tested or reported. On the latter, we provide a probable number of active cases based on CDC guidance for the typical duration of mild to severe cases.Reasons for undertaking this work in March of 2020:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-25 days + 5% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. On 3/17/2022, the U.S. calculation was adjusted to: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 6% from past 15-25 days + 3% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e4.htm https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions If a new variant arrives and appears to cause higher rates of serious cases, we will roll back this adjustment. We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source

Context

Authors introduce a global dataset on education policies and systems across modern history (EPSM), which includes measures on compulsory education, ideological guidance and content of education, governmental intervention and level of education centralization, and teacher training. EPSM covers 157 countries with populations exceeding 1 million people, and the time series extends from 1789 to the present. EPSM opens up for studying several questions concerning political control and the politicized nature of education systems. In addition to describing the measures, we detail how the data were collected and discuss validity and reliability issues. Thereafter, we describe historical trends in various characteristics of the education system. Finally, we illustrate how our data can be used to address key questions about education and politics, replicating and extending recent analyses on the (reciprocal) relationship between education and democratization, the impact of education on political attitudes, and how rural inequality interacts with regime type in influencing education systems. (2024-04-10)

Publication Date: 2024-05-15

More information about dataset is in readme file.

Authors:

• del Río, Adrián (University of Oslo)
• Knutsen, Carl Henrik (University of Oslo)
• Lutscher, Philipp (University of Oslo)

Note:

There are no restrictions to the sharing of our dataset. Full replication data and code as well as a dataset of our data sources can be found in this dataverse. Unfortunately, we cannot share some data sources due to copyright issues. We further note that despite our best efforts, mistakes cannot be ruled out completely. Readers are encouraged to contact the corresponding author if they find any and have suggestions to improve the dataset. Finally, we will update the dataset with new countries, years, and variables on a regular basis.

Japan Economy Watchers: Diffusion Index: Current Economics Conditions: sa data was reported at 45.100 NA in Mar 2025. This records a decrease from the previous number of 45.600 NA for Feb 2025. Japan Economy Watchers: Diffusion Index: Current Economics Conditions: sa data is updated monthly, averaging 47.150 NA from Aug 2001 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 284 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 58.500 NA in Dec 2021 and a record low of 8.100 NA in Apr 2020. Japan Economy Watchers: Diffusion Index: Current Economics Conditions: sa data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Cabinet Office. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Japan – Table JP.S074: Economy Watchers Survey: Seasonally Adjusted. [COVID-19-IMPACT]

Overview

The Associated Press is sharing data from the COVID Impact Survey, which provides statistics about physical health, mental health, economic security and social dynamics related to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

Conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation, the probability-based survey provides estimates for the United States as a whole, as well as in 10 states (California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Oregon and Texas) and eight metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Phoenix and Pittsburgh).

The survey is designed to allow for an ongoing gauge of public perception, health and economic status to see what is shifting during the pandemic. When multiple sets of data are available, it will allow for the tracking of how issues ranging from COVID-19 symptoms to economic status change over time.

The survey is focused on three core areas of research:

• Physical Health: Symptoms related to COVID-19, relevant existing conditions and health insurance coverage.
• Economic and Financial Health: Employment, food security, and government cash assistance.
• Social and Mental Health: Communication with friends and family, anxiety and volunteerism. (Questions based on those used on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.) ## Using this Data - IMPORTANT This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use our queries linked below or statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

Queries

If you'd like to create a table to see how people nationally or in your state or city feel about a topic in the survey, use the survey questionnaire and codebook to match a question (the variable label) to a variable name. For instance, "How often have you felt lonely in the past 7 days?" is variable "soc5c".

Nationally: Go to this query and enter soc5c as the variable. Hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

Local or State: To find figures for that response in a specific state, go to this query and type in a state name and soc5c as the variable, and then hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

The resulting sentence you could write out of these queries is: "People in some states are less likely to report loneliness than others. For example, 66% of Louisianans report feeling lonely on none of the last seven days, compared with 52% of Californians. Nationally, 60% of people said they hadn't felt lonely."

Margin of Error

The margin of error for the national and regional surveys is found in the attached methods statement. You will need the margin of error to determine if the comparisons are statistically significant. If the difference is:

• At least twice the margin of error, you can report there is a clear difference.
• At least as large as the margin of error, you can report there is a slight or apparent difference.
• Less than or equal to the margin of error, you can report that the respondents are divided or there is no difference. ## A Note on Timing Survey results will generally be posted under embargo on Tuesday evenings. The data is available for release at 1 p.m. ET Thursdays.

About the Data

The survey data will be provided under embargo in both comma-delimited and statistical formats.

Each set of survey data will be numbered and have the date the embargo lifts in front of it in the format of: 01_April_30_covid_impact_survey. The survey has been organized by the Data Foundation, a non-profit non-partisan think tank, and is sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the Packard Foundation. It is conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, a non-partisan research organization. (NORC is not an abbreviation, it part of the organization's formal name.)

Data for the national estimates are collected using the AmeriSpeak Panel, NORC’s probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Panel members are randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak with a target of achieving 2,000 interviews in each survey. Invited panel members may complete the survey online or by telephone with an NORC telephone interviewer.

Once all the study data have been made final, an iterative raking process is used to adjust for any survey nonresponse as well as any noncoverage or under and oversampling resulting from the study specific sample design. Raking variables include age, gender, census division, race/ethnicity, education, and county groupings based on county level counts of the number of COVID-19 deaths. Demographic weighting variables were obtained from the 2020 Current Population Survey. The count of COVID-19 deaths by county was obtained from USA Facts. The weighted data reflect the U.S. population of adults age 18 and over.

Data for the regional estimates are collected using a multi-mode address-based (ABS) approach that allows residents of each area to complete the interview via web or with an NORC telephone interviewer. All sampled households are mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over with a target of achieving 400 interviews in each region in each survey.Additional details on the survey methodology and the survey questionnaire are attached below or can be found at https://www.covid-impact.org.

Attribution

Results should be credited to the COVID Impact Survey, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation.

AP Data Distributions

​To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

This Voice of the People poll seeks the opinions of Canadians, on predominantly economic, political, and social issues. The questions ask opinions of the state of the economy, business and political leaders and predictions for 2006, and world progress. There are also questions on other topics of interest such as job safety, news media, world issues, and industrial disputes. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic and social variables. Topics of interest include: global economy; 2006; job safety; media; and industrial disputes. Basic demographic variables are also included.

The Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) program provides data and information to track Canada's performance on key environmental sustainability issues. The Global trends in protected areas indicator reports on the terrestrial and marine area afforded protection for conservation globally. Additional information is provided showing a comparison among 10 selected countries. Information on protected areas is collected, analyzed and made available by the World Database on Protected Areas to support a number of international reporting initiatives. Information is provided to Canadians in a number of formats including: static and interactive maps, charts and graphs, HTML and CSV data tables and downloadable reports. See supplementary documentation for data sources and details on how those data were collected and how the indicator was calculated.

Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators - Home page:

https://www.canada.ca/environmental-indicators

Abstract

The World Bank is interested in gauging the views of clients and partners who are either involved in development in China or who observe activities related to social and economic development. The World Bank Country Assessment Survey is meant to give the Bank's team that works in China, more in-depth insight into how the Bank's work is perceived. This is one tool the Bank uses to assess the views of its critical stakeholders. With this understanding, the World Bank hopes to develop more effective strategies, outreach and programs that support development in China. The World Bank commissioned an independent firm to oversee the logistics of this effort in China.

The survey was designed to achieve the following objectives: - Assist the World Bank in gaining a better understanding of how stakeholders in China perceive the Bank; - Obtain systematic feedback from stakeholders in China regarding: · Their views regarding the general environment in China; · Their perceived overall value of the World Bank in China; · Overall impressions of the World Bank as related to programs, poverty reduction, personal relationships, effectiveness, knowledge base, collaboration, and its day-to-day operation; and · Perceptions of the World Bank's communication and outreach in China. - Use data to help inform the China country team's strategy.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Stakeholder

Universe

Stakeholders of the World Bank in China

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

December 2011 thru March 2012, 518 stakeholders of the World Bank in China were invited to provide their opinions on the Bank's assistance to the country by participating in a country survey. Participants in the survey were drawn from among employees of a ministry or ministerial department of central government; local government officials or staff; project management offices at the central and local level; the central bank; financial sector/banks; NGOs; regulatory agencies; state-owned enterprises; bilateral or multilateral agencies; private sector organizations; consultants/contractors working on World Bank supported projects/programs; the media; and academia, research institutes or think tanks.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The Questionnaire consists of 8 Sections: 1. Background Information: The first section asked respondents for their current position; specialization; familiarity, exposure to, and involvement with the Bank; and geographic location.

1. General Issues facing China: Respondents were asked to indicate what they thought were the most important development priorities, which areas would contribute most to poverty reduction and economic growth in China, as well as rating their perspective on the future of the next generation in China.

2. Overall Attitudes toward the World Bank: Respondents were asked to rate the Bank's overall effectiveness in China, the extent to which the Bank's financial instruments meet China's needs, the extent to which the Bank meets China's need for knowledge services, and their agreement with various statements regarding the Bank's programs, poverty mission, relationships, and collaborations in China. Respondents were also asked to indicate the areas on which it would be most productive for the Bank to focus its resources and research, what the Bank's level of involvement should be, and what they felt were the Bank's greatest values and greatest weaknesses in its work.

3. The Work of the World Bank: Respondents were asked to rate their level of importance and the Bank's level of effectiveness across fifteen areas in which the Bank was involved, such as helping to reduce poverty and encouraging greater transparency in governance.

4. The Way the World Bank does Business: Respondents were asked to rate the Bank's level of effectiveness in the way it does business, including the Bank's knowledge, personal relationships, collaborations, and poverty mission.

5. Project/Program Related Issues: Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements regarding the Bank's programs, day-to-day operations, and collaborations in China.

6. The Future of the World Bank in China: Respondents were asked to rate how significant a role the Bank should play in China's development and to indicate what the Bank could do to make itself of greater value and what the greatest obstacle was to the Bank playing a significant role in China.

7. Communication and Outreach: Respondents were asked to indicate where they get information about development issues and the Bank's development activities in China, as well as how they prefer to receive information from the Bank. Respondents were also asked to indicate their usage of the Bank's website and PICs, and to evaluate these communication and outreach efforts.

Response rate

A total of 207 stakeholders participated in the country survey (40%).

United States Employment: sa: Part Time: ER: Slack Work Or Business Conditions data was reported at 3,042.000 Person th in Jun 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 3,004.000 Person th for May 2018. United States Employment: sa: Part Time: ER: Slack Work Or Business Conditions data is updated monthly, averaging 2,323.000 Person th from May 1955 (Median) to Jun 2018, with 758 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 6,972.000 Person th in Mar 2009 and a record low of 773.000 Person th in Apr 1966. United States Employment: sa: Part Time: ER: Slack Work Or Business Conditions data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.G014: Current Population Survey: Employment: Seasonally Adjusted.

The Economic Indicator Service (EIS) aims to deliver economic content to financial institutions on both buy and sell-side and service providers. This new service currently covers 34,351 recurring macro-economic indicators from 135 countries ( as of December 16, 2019 ) such as GDP data, unemployment releases, PMI numbers etc.

Economic Indicator Service gathers the major economic events from a variety of regions and countries around the globe and provides an Economic Events Data feed and Economic Calendar service to our clients. This service includes all previous historic data on economic indicators that are currently available on the database.

Depending on availability, information regarding economic indicators, including the details of the issuing agency as well as historical data series can be made accessible for the client. Key information about EIS: • Cloud-based service for Live Calendar – delivered via HTML/JavaScript application formats, which can then be embedded onto any website using iFrames • Alternatives methods available – such as API and JSON feed for the economic calendar that can be integrated into the company’s system • Live data – updated 24/5, immediately after the data has been released • Historical data – includes a feed of all previous economic indicators available We are currently adding additional indicators/countries from Africa as well as expanding our coverage of Indicators in G20. The calendar includes the following. • Recurring & Non-recurring indicators covering 136 countries across 21 regions. • Indicators showing high, medium, and low impact data. • Indicators showing actual, previous, and forecast data. • Indicators can be filtered across 16 subtypes. • News generation for selected high-impact data. • Indicator description and historical data up to the latest eight historical points with a chart.

How many people use social media?

              Social media usage is one of the most popular online activities. In 2024, over five billion people were using social media worldwide, a number projected to increase to over six billion in 2028.

              Who uses social media?
              Social networking is one of the most popular digital activities worldwide and it is no surprise that social networking penetration across all regions is constantly increasing. As of January 2023, the global social media usage rate stood at 59 percent. This figure is anticipated to grow as lesser developed digital markets catch up with other regions
              when it comes to infrastructure development and the availability of cheap mobile devices. In fact, most of social media’s global growth is driven by the increasing usage of mobile devices. Mobile-first market Eastern Asia topped the global ranking of mobile social networking penetration, followed by established digital powerhouses such as the Americas and Northern Europe.

              How much time do people spend on social media?
              Social media is an integral part of daily internet usage. On average, internet users spend 151 minutes per day on social media and messaging apps, an increase of 40 minutes since 2015. On average, internet users in Latin America had the highest average time spent per day on social media.

              What are the most popular social media platforms?
              Market leader Facebook was the first social network to surpass one billion registered accounts and currently boasts approximately 2.9 billion monthly active users, making it the most popular social network worldwide. In June 2023, the top social media apps in the Apple App Store included mobile messaging apps WhatsApp and Telegram Messenger, as well as the ever-popular app version of Facebook.

This Voice of the People poll seeks the opinions of Canadians, on predominantly economic, political, and social issues. The questions ask opinions about corruption, democracy, government, and world issues. There are also questions on topics such as the reduction and elimination of incidences of torture, familiarity with global institutions, predictions about the next generation, public school trends, and public clinics/hospitals. There are also questions on other topics of interest such as problems facing Canada, private/public sector contribution to the improvement of social services, trust in people, and globalization/globalisation. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographic and social variables. Topics of interest include: economy; corruption; American foreign policy; politics; next generation; elections; public schools; public clinics/hospitals; torture; global institution; democracy; and trust. Basic demographic variables are also included.

Abstract

The World Bank Group is interested in gauging the views of clients and partners who are either involved in development in Brazil or who observe activities related to social and economic development. The World Bank Country Assessment Survey is meant to give the World Bank Group's team that works in Brazil, greater insight into how the Bank's work is perceived. This is one tool the World Bank Group uses to assess the views of its critical stakeholders. With this understanding, the World Bank Group hopes to develop more effective strategies, outreach and programs that support development in Brazil at the federal/state/municipal level. The World Bank Group commissioned an independent firm to oversee the logistics of this effort in Brazil.

This survey was designed to achieve the following objectives: - Assist the World Bank Group in gaining a better understanding of how stakeholders in Brazil perceive the Bank;

• Obtain systematic feedback from stakeholders in Brazil regarding: · Their views regarding the general environment in Brazil; · Their overall attitudes toward the World Bank Group in Brazil; · Overall impressions of the World Bank Group's effectiveness and results, knowledge work, and communication and information sharing in Brazil; · Perceptions of the recent trends and the World Bank Group's future role in Brazil.

• Use data to help inform Brazil country team's strategy.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Stakeholder

Universe

Stakeholders of the World Bank in Brazil

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

From June to August 2013, 10,200 stakeholders of the World Bank Group in Brazil were invited to provide their opinions on the Bank's assistance to the country by participating in a country survey. Participants in the survey were drawn from the office of the President, Prime Minister/Minister, office of a parliamentarian, ministries, ministerial departments, or implementation agencies; consultants/ contractors working on World Bank Group-supported projects/programs; project management units (PMUs) overseeing implementation of a project; state Government; municipal governments; bilateral and multilateral agencies; private sector organizations; private foundations; the financial sector/private banks; NGOs; community-based organizations; the media; independent government institutions; trade unions; academia/research institutes/think tanks; faith-based groups, the judiciary branch; and other organizations.

Mode of data collection

Internet [int]

Research instrument

The Questionnaire consists of 8 Sections:

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

B. Overall Attitudes toward the World Bank Group: Respondents were asked to rate their familiarity with the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Latin American Development Bank, and the International Finance Corporation, their perceived effectiveness of these organizations in Brazil, and which of these organizations they work with the most in Brazil. They were asked to rate the Bank staff's preparedness to help Brazil solve its development challenges, their agreement with various statements regarding the Bank's work, and the extent to which the Bank is an effective development partner.

Respondents were also asked to indicate the Bank's greatest values, greatest weaknesses, the most effective instruments in helping reduce poverty in Brazil, in which sectoral areas the Bank should focus most resources, to what extent the Bank should seek to influence the global development agenda, and to what reasons respondents attributed failed or slow reform efforts. Respondents were invited to indicate at what level (federal, state, or municipal) the World Bank Group works mostly in Brazil. They were asked if the Bank is most effective when it works in one sector or multi-sectorally. Lastly, they were asked to indicate to what extent they believe the combination of financial, knowledge, and convening services provided by the Bank meets the national development needs of Brazil.

C. World Bank Group Effectiveness and Results: Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the Bank's work helps achieve development results, the extent to which the Bank meets Brazil's needs for knowledge services and financial instruments, and the Bank's level of effectiveness across thirty-two development areas, such as education, public sector governance/reform, health, transport, and anti-corruption. They were also asked to what extent they believe that Brazil receives value for money from the World Bank Group's fee-based services/products.

D. The World Bank Group'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 work and activities, including how significant of a contribution it makes to development results and its technical quality. Respondents were also asked whether they read/consulted the most recent LAC Flagship Report and whether it provided useful information in their work.

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

F. The Future Role of the World Bank Group in Brazil: Respondents were asked to rate how significant a role the World Bank Group should play in Brazil in the near future and to indicate what the Bank should do to make itself of greater value. Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they believe the World Bank Group has moved in the right direction in terms of the focus of its work in Brazil and how significant a role international development cooperation should play in Brazil's development in the near future at the federal, state, and/or municipal level.

G. Communication and Information Sharing: Respondents were asked to indicate how they get information about economic and social development issues, how they prefer to receive information from the Bank, and their usage and evaluation of the Bank's websites. Respondents were asked about their awareness of the Bank's Access to Information policy, whether they used/had used the World Bank Group website, and whether they accessed the Bank's social media channels. Respondents were also asked about their level of agreement that they know how to find information from the Bank, and that the Bank is responsive to information requests. Respondents were also asked to indicate what kind of e-services they are currently subscribed to.

H. Background Information: Respondents were asked to indicate their current position, specialization, at what level (federal, state, or municipal) they primarily work at, whether they professionally collaborate with the World Bank Group, whether they worked with the International Finance Corporation in Brazil, their exposure to the Bank in Brazil, and their geographic location.

Response rate

A total of 200 stakeholders participated in the survey (2% response rate).

Every day activities such as driving, burning coal for electricity, wildfires, running factories, even cooking and cleaning, release particles into the air. Besides being an irritant, small particles of 10, 2.5, 1 micrometers (PM10, PM2.5, PM1) or less are a health hazard since they can get deep into the respiratory system and damage the delicate tissues.The exposure of populations to high levels of small particles increases the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines provide long-term and short-term exposure limits to PM10 and PM2.5:Long-term: PM10 20 µg/m³ annual mean and PM2.5 10 µg/m³ Short-term: PM10 50 µg/m³ 24-hour mean and PM2.5 25 µg/m³ Exposure to PM10 and PM2.5 above these limits may significantly impact human health.The OpenAQ Recent Conditions in Air Quality layers show the latest mass concentrations and particulate count for PM2.5, PM10, and PM1 of the stations in the OpenAQ data set with at least one value reported in the past 30 days.Source: The source information is the OpenAQ community which reports measured concentrations (µg/m³) and particle matter count (particles/cm³) on a global scale by aggregating station data from national networks of air quality.Update Frequency: It is updated every hour using the Aggregated Live Feed (ALF) methodology.Area Covered: GlobalRevisionsJan 25, 2025: Upgrade to OpenAQ API version 3"Jan 18, 2024: Update to feed routine that allows stations w/o an identifier.Jun 23, 2023: Added new fields: Location ID, Station URL; Provider, and Instrument names. The live feed routine was updated to increase reliability and improve the overall update process.Jul 21, 2022: Added service to Live Feed Status Page for active monitoring!Feb 8, 2022: Update of live feed routine to use OpenAQ API v2:Addition of PM10 and PM1 layers.Values of particle matter count (particles/cm³) to all layers.Update of field labels.Removal of SourceName field.Feb 5, 2020: Official release of Feature Service offering.This layer is provided for informational purposes and is not monitored 24/7 for accuracy and currency.If you would like to be alerted to potential issues or simply see when this Service will update next, please visit our Live Feed Status Page!

The findings of the Environics Global Issues Monitor, 2002 Survey are based on the results of face-to face or telephone interviews with representative samples of about 1,000 citizens in each of 25 countries on five continents. Environics 2002 Global Issues Monitor survey was conducted in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, United States, Venezuela. Research was conducted by respected social research institutes in each country between October 8, 2001 and December 15, 2001. In Canada, the survey was conducted by Environics Research Group Ltd. It consisted of a nation-wide telephone survey with a sample of 1,002 individuals, 18 years and older carried out between November 24 and December 13, 2001. Some of the important topics in the EGIM 2002 are: - Expectations of the Future - Globalization - Role of Government - Poverty - Terrorism - Population Analysis

This special topic poll, conducted April 5-10, 2007, is part of a continuing series of monthly polls that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. The focus of this poll was environmental issues. Respondents were asked to rate the condition of the natural environment and to give their opinions about the biggest environmental problem the world faces today. Questions about weather patterns focused on whether the respondent thought the average temperature in the United States and in the world had increased over time, and whether they believed the earth's temperature had been increasing over the past 100 years. Respondent's opinions about global warming were collected and included information on how important global warming was to the respondent, how serious it was to them, how much could be done to reduce future global warming, how much could be done to reduce the effect of global warming on people and on the environment, and whether the federal government should do more to try to deal with global warming. Respondents of this poll were also asked a series of questions about national parks such as whether the respondent had ever visited a national park in the United States, whether the country's national parks were better compared to five years ago, whether they are well managed, and what respondents thought should have priority at national parks. Other questions asked whether respondents favored or opposed tax increases on electricity and gas, building cars that use less gas, building appliances that use less electricity, building homes and offices that use less energy for heating and cooling, and lowering the amount of greenhouse gases allowed into the air. Respondents were also asked who they trusted to do a better job, President Bush or the Congress, handling the overall environment, global warming, and the national parks. Demographic information includes respondent sex, age, race, income, marital status, religious preference, education level, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), political philosophy, political party affiliation, whether the respondent owed or rented their home, and whether there was any children under the age of 18 living at the respondent's home.