In 2023, according to the Gini coefficient, household income distribution in the United States was 0.47. This figure was at 0.43 in 1990, which indicates an increase in income inequality in the U.S. over the past 30 years. What is the Gini coefficient? The Gini coefficient, or Gini index, is a statistical measure of economic inequality and wealth distribution among a population. A value of zero represents perfect economic equality, and a value of one represents perfect economic inequality. The Gini coefficient helps to visualize income inequality in a more digestible way. For example, according to the Gini coefficient, the District of Columbia and the state of New York have the greatest amount of income inequality in the U.S. with a score of 0.51, and Utah has the greatest income equality with a score of 0.43. The Gini coefficient around the world The Gini coefficient is also an effective measure to help picture income inequality around the world. For example, in 2018 income inequality was highest in South Africa, while income inequality was lowest in Slovenia.

The rapid increase of wealth inequality in the past few decades is one of the most disturbing social and economic issues of our time. Studying its origin and underlying mechanisms is essential for policy aiming to control and even reverse this trend. In that context, controlling the distribution of income, using income tax or other macroeconomic policy instruments, is generally perceived as effective for regulating the wealth distribution. We provide a theoretical tool, based on the realistic modeling of wealth inequality dynamics, to describe the effects of personal savings and income distribution on wealth inequality. Our theoretical approach incorporates coupled equations, solved using iterated maps to model the dynamics of wealth and income inequality. Notably, using the appropriate historical parameter values we were able to capture the historical dynamics of wealth inequality in the United States during the course of the 20th century. It is found that the effect of personal savings on wealth inequality is substantial, and its major decrease in the past 30 years can be associated with the current wealth inequality surge. In addition, the effect of increasing income tax, though naturally contributing to lowering income inequality, might contribute to a mild increase in wealth inequality and vice versa. Plausible changes in income tax are found to have an insignificant effect on wealth inequality, in practice. In addition, controlling the income inequality, by progressive taxation, for example, is found to have a very small effect on wealth inequality in the short run. The results imply, therefore, that controlling income inequality is an impractical tool for regulating wealth inequality.

this graphs is ourdataworld :

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F00b0f9cc2bd8326c60fd0ea3b5dbe4b7%2Finequality.png?generation=1710013947537354&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F1978511abe249d3081a3a95bae2ef7d5%2Fincome-share-top-1-before-tax-wid-extrapolations.png?generation=1710013977201099&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F2a5a54725f65801ba75b6ab07bc5cb9f%2Fincome-share-top-1-before-tax-wid-extrapolations%20(1).png?generation=1710013994341360&alt=media" alt="">

How are incomes and wealth distributed between people? Both within countries and across the world as a whole?

On this page, you can find all our data, visualizations, and writing relating to economic inequality.

This evidence demonstrates that inequality in many countries is substantial and, in numerous instances, has been escalating. Global economic inequality is extensive and exacerbated by intersecting disparities in health, education, and various other dimensions.

However, economic inequality is not uniformly increasing. In many countries, it has declined or remained steady. Furthermore, global inequality – following two centuries of ascent – is presently decreasing as well.

The significant variations observed across countries and over time are pivotal. They indicate that high and rising inequality is not inevitable and that the current extent of inequality is subject to change.

About this data This data explorer offers various inequality indicators measured according to two distinct definitions of income sourced from different outlets.

Data from the World Inequality Database pertains to inequality prior to taxes and benefits. Data from the World Bank pertains to either income post taxes and benefits or consumption, contingent on the country and year. For additional details regarding the definitions and methodologies underlying this data, refer to the accompanying article below, where you can also delve into and juxtapose a broader spectrum of indicators from various sources.

Abstract

Is global inequality (inequality among world citizens) stable, decreasing or increasing? How high it is? Is it mostly due to inequalities within nations or between nations? Is there a global middle class? See the working papers above: "True world income distribution 1988 and 1993: first calculations based on household surveys alone" no. 2244, and "Decomposing global income distribution: Does the world have a middle class?" no. 2562

Household survey data (1988-2002) used in these papers, and subsequent book "Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality", Princeton University Press, 2005. The data are for three benchmark years: 1988, 1993 and 1998

Kind of data

Aggregate data [agg]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

Between 2010 and 2023, Mexico's data on the degree of inequality in income distribution based on the Gini coefficient decreased compared to the previous period, at 45.4. The Gini coefficient measures the deviation of the distribution of income (or consumption) among individuals or households in a given country from a perfectly equal distribution. A value of 0 represents absolute equality, whereas 100 would be the highest possible degree of inequality. Poverty still one of the major problems During the last four years, the minimum wage in Mexico has been increasing substantially, going from 141.7 to 248.93 Mexican pesos per day. The main reason for this was to pull people out of poverty. In 2014, the population under the poverty line was over 46 percent, that is almost half of Mexicans living with conditions of vulnerability. Eight years later, the rate was about 36 percent, still a significant number of people living in poverty but a considerable decrease. Gender inequality Mexico does not score particularly well in gender inequality, in fact, it ranks 33rd in the world in the Global Gender Gap Index. Despite some advances, the Aztec country performs poorly in most of the metrics that measure inequality. During late 2022, women recorded a pay disparity of –13.15 percent when compared to them male counterparts. That is to say, that for the same job a woman is paid 87.85 MXP when a man receives 100 MXP.

Cross-national research on the causes and consequences of income inequality has been hindered by the limitations of the existing inequality datasets: greater coverage across countries and over time has been available from these sources only at the cost of significantly reduced comparability across observations. The goal of the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID) is to meet the needs of those engaged in broadly cross-national research by maximizing the comparability of income inequality data while maintaining the widest possible coverage across countries and over time. The SWIID’s income inequality estimates are based on thousands of reported Gini indices from hundreds of published sources, including the OECD Income Distribution Database, the Socio-Economic Database for Latin America and the Caribbean generated by CEDLAS and the World Bank, Eurostat, the World Bank’s PovcalNet, the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, national statistical offices around the world, and academic studies while minimizing reliance on problematic assumptions by using as much information as possible from proximate years within the same country. The data collected and harmonized by the Luxembourg Income Study is employed as the standard. The SWIID currently incorporates comparable Gini indices of disposable and market income inequality for 199 countries for as many years as possible from 1960 to the present; it also includes information on absolute and relative redistribution.

The World Income Inequality Database (WIID) contains information on income inequality in various countries, and is maintained by the United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER). The database was originally compiled during 1997-99 for the research project Rising Income Inequality and Poverty Reduction, directed by Giovanni Andrea Corina. A revised and updated version of the database was published in June 2005 as part of the project Global Trends in Inequality and Poverty, directed by Tony Shorrocks and Guang Hua Wan. The database was revised in 2007 and a new version was launched in May 2008.

The database contains data on inequality in the distribution of income in various countries. The central variable in the dataset is the Gini index, a measure of income distribution in a society. In addition, the dataset contains information on income shares by quintile or decile. The database contains data for 159 countries, including some historical entities. The temporal coverage varies substantially across countries. For some countries there is only one data entry; in other cases there are over 100 data points. The earliest entry is from 1867 (United Kingdom), the latest from 2003. The majority of the data (65%) cover the years from 1980 onwards. The 2008 update (version WIID2c) includes some major updates and quality improvements, in fact leading to a reduced number of variables in the new version. The new version has 334 new observations and several revisions/ corrections made in 2007 and 2008.

This dataset contains replication files for "The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940" by Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/the-fading-american-dream/. A summary of the related publication follows. One of the defining features of the “American Dream” is the ideal that children have a higher standard of living than their parents. We assess whether the U.S. is living up to this ideal by estimating rates of “absolute income mobility” – the fraction of children who earn more than their parents – since 1940. We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size. Absolute mobility fell in all 50 states, although the rate of decline varied, with the largest declines concentrated in states in the industrial Midwest, such as Michigan and Illinois. The decline in absolute mobility is especially steep – from 95% for children born in 1940 to 41% for children born in 1984 – when we compare the sons’ earnings to their fathers’ earnings. Why have rates of upward income mobility fallen so sharply over the past half-century? There have been two important trends that have affected the incomes of children born in the 1980s relative to those born in the 1940s and 1950s: lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates and greater inequality in the distribution of growth. We find that most of the decline in absolute mobility is driven by the more unequal distribution of economic growth rather than the slowdown in aggregate growth rates. When we simulate an economy that restores GDP growth to the levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s but distributes that growth across income groups as it is distributed today, absolute mobility only increases to 62%. In contrast, maintaining GDP at its current level but distributing it more broadly across income groups – at it was distributed for children born in the 1940s – would increase absolute mobility to 80%, thereby reversing more than two-thirds of the decline in absolute mobility. These findings show that higher growth rates alone are insufficient to restore absolute mobility to the levels experienced in mid-century America. Under the current distribution of GDP, we would need real GDP growth rates above 6% per year to return to rates of absolute mobility in the 1940s. Intuitively, because a large fraction of GDP goes to a small fraction of high-income households today, higher GDP growth does not substantially increase the number of children who earn more than their parents. Of course, this does not mean that GDP growth does not matter: changing the distribution of growth naturally has smaller effects on absolute mobility when there is very little growth to be distributed. The key point is that increasing absolute mobility substantially would require more broad-based economic growth. We conclude that absolute mobility has declined sharply in America over the past half-century primarily because of the growth in inequality. If one wants to revive the “American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility, one must have an interest in growth that is shared more broadly across the income distribution.

What effect does rising income inequality have on longevity in advanced developed economies? This paper focuses on the effect of income inequality on mortality rates for men and women in a subset of OECD countries over nearly six decades from 1950-2008. Using adult mortality rates at aged sixty-five as the outcome measure of mortality, the latest available data on inverted Pareto-Lorenz coefficient as a measure of income inequality, we conduct a range of analysis to investigate the relationship. The findings show that income inequality has a negative effect on mortality rates for both men and women, that is, an increase in income inequality at the top of the distribution does not appear to have a detrimental effect on adult mortality rates in the population of advanced developed countries. For every one unit increase in income inequality, female mortality rates decreased by 0.024 percentage points (p≤0.001) and male mortality rates decreased by 0.052 percentage points (p≤0.001). Dynamic OLS results show that for every one unit increase in income inequality, female mortality rates decreased by 0.032 percentage points (p≤0.01) and male mortality rates decreased by 0.067 percentage points (p≤0.001). The findings remain robust to changes in methodology and the inclusion of control variables including GDP, population and the health capital index.

Brazil BR: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data was reported at 52.000 % in 2022. This records a decrease from the previous number of 52.900 % for 2021. Brazil BR: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data is updated yearly, averaging 56.400 % from Dec 1981 (Median) to 2022, with 38 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 63.300 % in 1989 and a record low of 48.900 % in 2020. Brazil BR: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Brazil – Table BR.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or, in some cases, consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

Between 2010 and 2023, Brazil's data on the degree of inequality in wealth distribution based on the Gini coefficient reached 52. That year, Brazil was deemed one of the most unequal country in Latin America. Prior to 2010, wealth distribution in Brazil had shown signs of improvement, with the Gini coefficient decreasing in the previous 3 reporting periods. The Gini coefficient measures the deviation of the distribution of income (or consumption) among individuals or households in a given country from a perfectly equal distribution. A value of 0 represents absolute equality, whereas 100 would be the highest possible degree of inequality.

Reduce inequality within and among countries : Pacific SIDS require special assistance to guarantee a share in the benefits of sustainable development. Their role in international organisations, with respect to membership and voting rights, is one element in this process; Goal 10 also seeks to measure inequality within countries, by looking at the change in per capita income or consumption of the poorest four-tenths of the population relative to the national average.

Find more Pacific data on PDH.stat.

Inequality is often associated with negative societal consequences, but identifying a causal relationship is a daunting task. We provide evidence on the impact of unjust economic inequality on social interactions. Using a large-scale controlled experiment, we document that unjust inequality results in a significant decline in trust and trustworthiness. This erosion of social capital is associated with pessimistic beliefs about others’ behavior and is muted if there is no direct link between the income-generating process and social interaction. Finally, our data do not support the view that higher status or wealth affects prosocial attitudes: the successful are always more generous, whereas unsuccessful persons display the least efficient and generous behavior regardless of the status of the person who they interact with.

This paper presents a new dataset that measures inequality levels on the city-state of Delos at two different points in time during the period of its independence (314-167 BCE). We propose a new approach for quantifying ancient inequality and its evolution by relying on inscriptions that indicate property data and artisanal remunerations. A probabilistic approach is adopted to assess the uncertainty of the estimates and their sensitivity to assumptions. This paper finds that there was a decrease in wealth inequality of about 20% between the early and late periods of independence. We hypothesize that the main reason for the socio-economic changes is to be found in the new political status of autonomy that occurred in 314 BCE and resulted in a greater share of wealth being held by the middle class.

BackgroundCatastrophic health expenditures (CHE) can trigger illness-caused poverty and compound poverty-caused illness. Our study is the first regional comparative study to analyze CHE trends and health inequality in eastern, central and western China, exploring the differences and disparities across regions to make targeted health policy recommendations.MethodsUsing data from China's Household Panel Study (CFPS), we selected Shanghai, Henan and Gansu as representative eastern-central-western regional provinces to construct a unique 5-year CHE unbalanced panel dataset. CHE incidence was measured by calculating headcount; CHE intensity was measured by overshoot and CHE inequality was estimated by concentration curves (CC) and the concentration index (CI). A random effect model was employed to analyze the impact of household head socio-economic characteristics, the household socio-economic characteristics and household health utilization on CHE incidence across the three regions.ResultsThe study found that the incidence and intensity of CHE decreased, but the degree of CHE inequality increased, across all three regions. For all regions, the trend of inequality first decreased and then increased. We also revealed significant differences across the eastern, central and western regions of China in CHE incidence, intensity, inequality and regional differences in the CHE influencing factors. Affected by factors such as the gap between the rich and the poor and the uneven distribution of medical resources, families in the eastern region who were unmarried, use supplementary medical insurance, and had members receiving outpatient treatment were more likely to experience CHE. Families with chronic diseases in the central and western regions were more likely to suffer CHE, and rural families in the western region were more likely to experience CHE.ConclusionsThe trends and causes of CHE varied across the different regions, which requires a further tilt of medical resources to the central and western regions; improved prevention and financial support for chronic diseases households; and reform of the insurance reimbursement policy of outpatient medical insurance. On a regional basis, health policy should not only address CHE incidence and intensity, but also its inequality.

Goal 10Reduce inequality within and among countriesTarget 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national averageIndicator 10.1.1: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita among the bottom 40 per cent of the population and the total populationSI_HEI_TOTL: Growth rates of household expenditure or income per capita (%)Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other statusIndicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 per cent of median income, by sex, age and persons with disabilitiesSI_POV_50MI: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income (%)Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regardIndicator 10.3.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights lawVC_VOV_GDSD: Proportion of population reporting having felt discriminated against, by grounds of discrimination, sex and disability (%)Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equalityIndicator 10.4.1: Labour share of GDPSL_EMP_GTOTL: Labour share of GDP (%)Indicator 10.4.2: Redistributive impact of fiscal policySI_DST_FISP: Redistributive impact of fiscal policy, Gini index (%)Target 10.5: Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulationsIndicator 10.5.1: Financial Soundness IndicatorsFI_FSI_FSANL: Non-performing loans to total gross loans (%)FI_FSI_FSERA: Return on assets (%)FI_FSI_FSKA: Regulatory capital to assets (%)FI_FSI_FSKNL: Non-performing loans net of provisions to capital (%)FI_FSI_FSKRTC: Regulatory Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets (%)FI_FSI_FSLS: Liquid assets to short term liabilities (%)FI_FSI_FSSNO: Net open position in foreign exchange to capital (%)Target 10.6: Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutionsIndicator 10.6.1: Proportion of members and voting rights of developing countries in international organizationsSG_INT_MBRDEV: Proportion of members of developing countries in international organizations, by organization (%)SG_INT_VRTDEV: Proportion of voting rights of developing countries in international organizations, by organization (%)Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policiesIndicator 10.7.1: Recruitment cost borne by employee as a proportion of monthly income earned in country of destinationIndicator 10.7.2: Number of countries with migration policies that facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of peopleSG_CPA_MIGRP: Proportion of countries with migration policies to facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, by policy domain (%)SG_CPA_MIGRS: Countries with migration policies to facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, by policy domain (1 = Requires further progress; 2 = Partially meets; 3 = Meets; 4 = Fully meets)Indicator 10.7.3: Number of people who died or disappeared in the process of migration towards an international destinationiSM_DTH_MIGR: Total deaths and disappearances recorded during migration (number)Indicator 10.7.4: Proportion of the population who are refugees, by country of originSM_POP_REFG_OR: Number of refugees per 100,000 population, by country of origin (per 100,000 population)Target 10.a: Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreementsIndicator 10.a.1: Proportion of tariff lines applied to imports from least developed countries and developing countries with zero-tariffTM_TRF_ZERO: Proportion of tariff lines applied to imports with zero-tariff (%)Target 10.b: Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmesIndicator 10.b.1: Total resource flows for development, by recipient and donor countries and type of flow (e.g. official development assistance, foreign direct investment and other flows)DC_TRF_TOTDL: Total assistance for development, by donor countries (millions of current United States dollars)DC_TRF_TOTL: Total assistance for development, by recipient countries (millions of current United States dollars)DC_TRF_TFDV: Total resource flows for development, by recipient and donor countries (millions of current United States dollars)Target 10.c: By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per centIndicator 10.c.1: Remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remittedSI_RMT_COST: Remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted (%)SI_RMT_COST_BC: Corridor remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted (%)SI_RMT_COST_SC: SmaRT corridor remittance costs as a proportion of the amount remitted (%)

Reducing health inequalities is a key objective for many governments and public health organizations. Whether inequalities are measured on the absolute (difference) or relative (ratio) scale can have a significant impact on judgments about whether health inequalities are increasing or decreasing, but both of these measures are not often presented in empirical studies. In this study we investigated the impact of selective presentation of health inequality measures on judgments of health inequality trends among 40 university undergraduates. We randomized participants to see either a difference or ratio measure of health inequality alongside raw mortality rates in 5 different scenarios. At baseline there were no differences between treatment groups in assessments of inequality trends, but selective exposure to the same raw data augmented with ratio versus difference inequality graphs altered participants’ assessments of inequality change. When absolute inequality decreased and relative inequality increased, exposure to ratio measures increased the probability of concluding that inequality had increased from 32.5% to 70%, but exposure to difference measures did not (35% vs. 25%). Selective exposure to ratio versus difference inequality graphs thus increased the difference between groups in concluding that inequality had increased from 2.5% (95% CI −9.5% to 14.5%) to 45% (95% CI 29.4 to 60.6). A similar pattern was evident for other scenarios where absolute and relative inequality trends gave conflicting results. In cases where measures of absolute and relative inequality both increased or both decreased, we did not find any evidence that assignment to ratio vs. difference graphs had an impact on assessments of inequality change. Selective reporting of measures of health inequality has the potential to create biased judgments of progress in ameliorating health inequalities.

BackgroundDue to substantial improvements in prevention and therapy, stroke incidence and mortality rates have decreased during the last decades, but evidence is still lacking on whether all socioeconomic groups benefited equally and how the length of life affected by stroke developed over time. Our study investigates time trends in stroke-free life years and life years affected by stroke. Special emphasis is given to the question whether trends differ between income groups, leading to decreasing or increasing social inequalities.MethodsThe analyses are based on claims data of a German statutory health insurance company of the two time periods 2006–2008 and 2014–2016. Income inequalities and time trends in incidence and mortality risks were estimated using multistate survival models. Trends in stroke-free life years and life years affected by stroke are analysed separately for income groups by applying multistate life table analyses.ResultsStroke incidence and mortality risks decreased in men and women in all income groups. While stroke-free lifetime could be gained in men having higher incomes, improvements in mortality counterbalanced decreasing incidences, leading to increases in life years affected by stroke among men of the lower and higher income group. Among women, no significant changes in life years could be observed.ConclusionsChanges in stroke-affected life years occur among men in all income groups, but are more pronounced in the higher income group. However, irrespective of the income group the proportion of stroke-affected life years remains quite stable over time, pointing towards constant inequalities. Further research is needed on whether impairments due to stroke reduced over time and whether all socioeconomic groups are affected equally.

There are significant differences in energy footprints among individual households. This study uses an environmentally extended input-output approach to estimate the per capita household energy footprint (PCHEF) of 10 different income groups in China’s 30 provinces and analyzes the heterogeneity of household consumption categories, and finally measures the energy equality of households in each province by measuring the energy footprint Gini coefficient (EF-Gini). It is found that the energy footprint of the top 10% income households accounted for about 22% of the national energy footprint in 2017, while the energy footprint of the bottom 40% income households accounted for only 24%. With the growth of China’s economy, energy footprint inequality has declined spatially and temporally. Firstly, wealthier coastal regions have experienced greater convergence in their energy footprint than poorer inland regions. Secondly, China’s household EF-Gini has declined from 0.38 in 2012 to 0.36 in 2017. This study shows that China’s economic growth has not only raised household income levels, but also reduced energy footprint inequality.

CO: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data was reported at 54.800 % in 2022. This records a decrease from the previous number of 55.100 % for 2021. CO: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data is updated yearly, averaging 53.600 % from Dec 1980 (Median) to 2022, with 28 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 59.100 % in 1980 and a record low of 49.700 % in 2017. CO: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Colombia – Table CO.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or, in some cases, consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).