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.
Series Name: Proportion of population below international poverty line (percent)Series Code: SI_POV_DAY1Release Version: 2021.Q2.G.03 This dataset is the part of the Global SDG Indicator Database compiled through the UN System in preparation for the Secretary-General's annual report on Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.Indicator 1.1.1: Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural)Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a dayGoal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhereFor more information on the compilation methodology of this dataset, see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/
Series Name: Employed population below international poverty line by sex and age (percent)Series Code: SI_POV_EMP1Release Version: 2021.Q2.G.03 This dataset is part of the Global SDG Indicator Database compiled through the UN System in preparation for the Secretary-General's annual report on Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.Indicator 1.1.1: Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural)Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a dayGoal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhereFor more information on the compilation methodology of this dataset, see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/
Series SI_POV_EMP1: Employed population below international poverty line, by sex and age (%)
Indicator 1.1.1: Proportion of population below the international poverty line, by sex, age, employment status and geographical location (urban/rural)
Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day
Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Release Version: 2018.Q2.G.01
In 2025, nearly 11.7 percent of the world population in extreme poverty, with the poverty threshold at 2.15 U.S. dollars a day, lived in Nigeria. Moreover, the Democratic Republic of the Congo accounted for around 11.7 percent of the global population in extreme poverty. Other African nations with a large poor population were Tanzania, Mozambique, and Madagascar. Poverty levels remain high despite the forecast decline Poverty is a widespread issue across Africa. Around 429 million people on the continent were living below the extreme poverty line of 2.15 U.S. dollars a day in 2024. Since the continent had approximately 1.4 billion inhabitants, roughly a third of Africa’s population was in extreme poverty that year. Mozambique, Malawi, Central African Republic, and Niger had Africa’s highest extreme poverty rates based on the 2.15 U.S. dollars per day extreme poverty indicator (updated from 1.90 U.S. dollars in September 2022). Although the levels of poverty on the continent are forecast to decrease in the coming years, Africa will remain the poorest region compared to the rest of the world. Prevalence of poverty and malnutrition across Africa Multiple factors are linked to increased poverty. Regions with critical situations of employment, education, health, nutrition, war, and conflict usually have larger poor populations. Consequently, poverty tends to be more prevalent in least-developed and developing countries worldwide. For similar reasons, rural households also face higher poverty levels. In 2024, the extreme poverty rate in Africa stood at around 45 percent among the rural population, compared to seven percent in urban areas. Together with poverty, malnutrition is also widespread in Africa. Limited access to food leads to low health conditions, increasing the poverty risk. At the same time, poverty can determine inadequate nutrition. Almost 38.3 percent of the global undernourished population lived in Africa in 2022.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/legal/#copyright-public-domainhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/legal/#copyright-public-domain
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.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Multidimensional Poverty Headcount Ratio: World Bank: % of total population data was reported at 1.500 % in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.600 % for 2021. Multidimensional Poverty Headcount Ratio: World Bank: % of total population data is updated yearly, averaging 1.300 % from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2022, with 13 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.500 % in 2022 and a record low of 0.500 % in 2020. Multidimensional Poverty Headcount Ratio: World Bank: % of total population 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: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The multidimensional poverty headcount ratio (World Bank) is the percentage of a population living in poverty according to the World Bank's Multidimensional Poverty Measure. The Multidimensional Poverty Measure includes three dimensions – monetary poverty, education, and basic infrastructure services – to capture a more complete picture of poverty.;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).
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Chile CL: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 13.800 % in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 13.400 % for 2020. Chile CL: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 17.900 % from Dec 1987 (Median) to 2022, with 16 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 20.800 % in 1987 and a record low of 13.400 % in 2020. Chile CL: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Chile – Table CL.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).
In 2023, 17.9 percent of Black people living in the United States were living below the poverty line, compared to 7.7 percent of white people. That year, the total poverty rate in the U.S. across all races and ethnicities was 11.1 percent. Poverty in the United States Single people in the United States making less than 12,880 U.S. dollars a year and families of four making less than 26,500 U.S. dollars a year are considered to be below the poverty line. Women and children are more likely to suffer from poverty, due to women staying home more often than men to take care of children, and women suffering from the gender wage gap. Not only are women and children more likely to be affected, racial minorities are as well due to the discrimination they face. Poverty data Despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States had the third highest poverty rate out of all OECD countries in 2019. However, the United States' poverty rate has been fluctuating since 1990, but has been decreasing since 2014. The average median household income in the U.S. has remained somewhat consistent since 1990, but has recently increased since 2014 until a slight decrease in 2020, potentially due to the pandemic. The state that had the highest number of people living below the poverty line in 2020 was California.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
The most common poverty measures, including that used by the OECD, focus on income based approaches. One of the most common measures of income poverty is the proportion of households with income less than half median equivalised disposable household income (which is set as the poverty line); this is a relative income poverty measure as poverty is measured by reference to the income of others rather than in some absolute sense. Australia has one of the highest household disposable incomes in the world, which means that an Australian relative income poverty line is set at a high level of income compared to most other countries.
OECD statistics on Australian poverty 2015-16 (based on ABS Survey of Income and Housing data and applying a poverty line of 50% of median income) determined the Australian poverty rate was over 25% before taxes and transfers, but falls around 12% after taxes and transfers. Though measuring poverty through application of solely an income measure is not considered comprehensive for an Australian context, however, it does demonstrate that the Australian welfare system more than halves the number of Australians that would otherwise be considered as at risk of living in poverty under that measure.
It is important to consider a range of indicators of persistent disadvantage to understand poverty and hardship and its multidimensional nature. Different indicators point to different dimensions of poverty.
While transient poverty is a problem, the experience of persistent poverty is of deeper concern, particularly where families experience intergenerational disadvantage and long-term welfare reliance. HILDA data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research shows the Distribution of number of years in poverty 2001–2015. The figure focuses on the longer term experience of working age adults and shows that while people do fall into poverty, only a small proportion of people are persistently poor.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Portugal PT: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 10.500 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 12.300 % for 2020. Portugal PT: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 12.200 % from Dec 2003 (Median) to 2021, with 19 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 14.400 % in 2013 and a record low of 10.500 % in 2021. Portugal PT: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Portugal – Table PT.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;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).
Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.
The Young Lives survey is an innovative long-term project investigating the changing nature of childhood poverty in four developing countries. The study is being conducted in Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam and has tracked the lives of 12,000 children over a 20-year period, through 5 (in-person) survey rounds (Round 1-5) and, with the latest survey round (Round 6) conducted over the phone in 2020 and 2021 as part of the Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey.Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
The "Forest Proximate People" (FPP) dataset is one of the data layers contributing to the development of indicator #13, “number of forest-dependent people in extreme poverty,” of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) Global Core Set of forest-related indicators (GCS). The FPP dataset provides an estimate of the number of people living in or within 5 kilometers of forests (forest-proximate people) for the year 2019 with a spatial resolution of 100 meters at a global level.
For more detail, such as the theory behind this indicator and the definition of parameters, and to cite this data, see: Newton, P., Castle, S.E., Kinzer, A.T., Miller, D.C., Oldekop, J.A., Linhares-Juvenal, T., Pina, L. Madrid, M., & de Lamo, J. 2022. The number of forest- and tree-proximate people: A new methodology and global estimates. Background Paper to The State of the World’s Forests 2022 report. Rome, FAO.
Contact points:
Maintainer: Leticia Pina
Maintainer: Sarah E., Castle
Data lineage:
The FPP data are generated using Google Earth Engine. Forests are defined by the Copernicus Global Land Cover (CGLC) (Buchhorn et al. 2020) classification system’s definition of forests: tree cover ranging from 15-100%, with or without understory of shrubs and grassland, and including both open and closed forests. Any area classified as forest sized ≥ 1 ha in 2019 was included in this definition. Population density was defined by the WorldPop global population data for 2019 (WorldPop 2018). High density urban populations were excluded from the analysis. High density urban areas were defined as any contiguous area with a total population (using 2019 WorldPop data for population) of at least 50,000 people and comprised of pixels all of which met at least one of two criteria: either the pixel a) had at least 1,500 people per square km, or b) was classified as “built-up” land use by the CGLC dataset (where “built-up” was defined as land covered by buildings and other manmade structures) (Dijkstra et al. 2020). Using these datasets, any rural people living in or within 5 kilometers of forests in 2019 were classified as forest proximate people. Euclidean distance was used as the measure to create a 5-kilometer buffer zone around each forest cover pixel. The scripts for generating the forest-proximate people and the rural-urban datasets using different parameters or for different years are published and available to users. For more detail, such as the theory behind this indicator and the definition of parameters, and to cite this data, see: Newton, P., Castle, S.E., Kinzer, A.T., Miller, D.C., Oldekop, J.A., Linhares-Juvenal, T., Pina, L., Madrid, M., & de Lamo, J. 2022. The number of forest- and tree-proximate people: a new methodology and global estimates. Background Paper to The State of the World’s Forests 2022. Rome, FAO.
References:
Buchhorn, M., Smets, B., Bertels, L., De Roo, B., Lesiv, M., Tsendbazar, N.E., Herold, M., Fritz, S., 2020. Copernicus Global Land Service: Land Cover 100m: collection 3 epoch 2019. Globe.
Dijkstra, L., Florczyk, A.J., Freire, S., Kemper, T., Melchiorri, M., Pesaresi, M. and Schiavina, M., 2020. Applying the degree of urbanisation to the globe: A new harmonised definition reveals a different picture of global urbanisation. Journal of Urban Economics, p.103312.
WorldPop (www.worldpop.org - School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton; Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville; Departement de Geographie, Universite de Namur) and Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, 2018. Global High Resolution Population Denominators Project - Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1134076). https://dx.doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/WP00645
Online resources:
GEE asset for "Forest proximate people - 5km cutoff distance"
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Bangladesh BD: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 14.000 % in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 6.100 % for 2016. Bangladesh BD: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 5.250 % from Dec 1983 (Median) to 2022, with 10 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 14.000 % in 2022 and a record low of 3.600 % in 1985. Bangladesh BD: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Bangladesh – Table BD.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;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).
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Timor-Leste experienced a fundamental social and economic upheaval after its people voted for independence from Indonesia in a referendum in August 1999. Population was displaced, and public and private infrastructure was destroyed or rendered inoperable. Soon after the violence ceased, the country began rebuilding itself with the support from UN agencies, the international donor community and NGOs. The government laid out a National Development Plan (NDP) with two central goals: to promote rapid, equitable and sustainable economic growth and to reduce poverty. Formulating a national plan and poverty reduction strategy required data on poverty and living standards, and given the profound changes experienced, new data collection had to be undertaken to accurately assess the living conditions in the country. The Planning Commission of the Timor-Leste Transitional Authority undertook a Poverty Assessment Project along with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA). This project comprised three data collection activities on different aspects of living standards, which taken together, provide a comprehensive picture of well-being in Timor-Leste. The first component was the Suco Survey, which is a census of all 498 sucos (villages) in the country. It provides an inventory of existing social and physical infrastructure and of the economic characteristics of each suco, in addition to aldeia (hamlet) level population figures. It was carried out between February and April 2001. A second element was the Timor-Leste Living Standards Measurement Survey (TLSS). This is a household survey with a nationally representative sample of 1,800 families from 100 sucos. It was designed to diagnose the extent, nature and causes of poverty, and to analyze policy options facing the country. It assembles comprehensive information on household demographics, housing and assets, household expenditures and some components of income, agriculture, labor market data, basic health and education, subjective perceptions of poverty and social capital. Data collection was undertaken between end August and November 2001. The final component was the Participatory Potential Assessment (PPA), which is a qualitative community survey in 48 aldeias in the 13 districts of the country to take stock of their assets, skills and strengths, identify the main challenges and priorities, and formulate strategies for tackling these within their communities. It was completed between November 2001 and January 2002.
Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
License information was derived automatically
The aim of the Human Development Report is to stimulate global, regional and national policy-relevant discussions on issues pertinent to human development. Accordingly, the data in the Report require the highest standards of data quality, consistency, international comparability and transparency. The Human Development Report Office (HDRO) fully subscribes to the Principles governing international statistical activities.
The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.
The 2019 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) data shed light on the number of people experiencing poverty at regional, national and subnational levels, and reveal inequalities across countries and among the poor themselves.Jointly developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) at the University of Oxford, the 2019 global MPI offers data for 101 countries, covering 76 percent of the global population. The MPI provides a comprehensive and in-depth picture of global poverty – in all its dimensions – and monitors progress towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 – to end poverty in all its forms. It also provides policymakers with the data to respond to the call of Target 1.2, which is to ‘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 definition'.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Sweden SE: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 11.100 % in 2021. This records an increase from the previous number of 10.100 % for 2020. Sweden SE: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 8.900 % from Dec 1975 (Median) to 2021, with 27 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.100 % in 2021 and a record low of 5.200 % in 1987. Sweden SE: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Sweden – Table SE.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;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).
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Hungary HU: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 7.700 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 10.000 % for 2020. Hungary HU: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 10.550 % from Dec 2004 (Median) to 2021, with 18 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 12.900 % in 2005 and a record low of 7.700 % in 2021. Hungary HU: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Hungary – Table HU.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;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).
The Integrated Living Conditions Survey (ILCS), conducted annually by the NSS National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, formed the basis for monitoring living conditions in Armenia. The ILCS is a universally recognized best-practice survey for collecting data to inform about the living standards of households. The ILCS comprises comprehensive and valuable data on the welfare of households and separate individuals which gives the NSS an opportunity to provide the public with up to date information on the population’s income, expenditures, the level of poverty and the other changes in living standards on an annual basis.
Urban and rural communities
Sample survey data [ssd]
During the 2001-2003 surveys two-stage random sample was used; the first stage covered the selection of settlements - cities and villages, while the second stage was focused on the selection of households in these settlements. The surveys were conducted on the principle of monthly rotation of households by clusters (sample units). In 2002 and 2003 the number of households was 387 with the sample covering 14 cities and 30 villages in 2002 and 17 cities and 20 villages in 2003.
During the 2004-2006 surveys the sampling frame for the ILCS was built using the database of addresses for the 2001 Population Census; the database was developed with the World Bank technical assistance. The database of addresses of all households in Armenia was divided into 48 strata including 12 communities of Yerevan city. The households from other regions (marzes) were grouped according to the following three categories: big towns with 15,000 and more population; villages, and other towns. Big towns formed 16 strata (the only exception was the Vayots Dzor marz where there are no big towns). The villages and other towns formed 10 strata each. According to this division, a random, two-step sample stratified at marz level was developed. All marzes, as well as all urban and rural settlements were included in the sample population according to the share of population residing in those settlements as percent to the total population in the country. In the first step, the settlements, i.e. primary sample units, were selected: 43 towns out of 48 or 90 percent of all towns in Armenia were surveyed during the year; also 216 villages out of 951 or 23 percent of all villages in the country were covered by the survey. In the second step, the respondent households were selected: 6,816 households (5,088 from urban and 1,728 from rural settlements). As a result, for the first time since 1996 survey data were representative at the marz level.
During the 2007-2012 surveys the sampling frame for ILCS was designed according to the database of addresses for the 2001 Population Census, which was developed with the World Bank technical assistance. The sample consisted of two parts: core sample and oversample.
1) For the creation of core sample, the sample frame (database of addresses of all households in Armenia) was divided into 48 strata including 12 communities of Yerevan city. The households from other regions (marzes) were grouped according to three categories: large towns (with population of 15000 and higher), villages and other towns. Large towns formed by 16 groups (strata), while the villages and towns formed by 10 strata each. According to that division, a random, two-step sample stratified at the marz level was developed. All marzes, as well as all urban and rural settlements were included in the sample population according to the share of households residing in those settlements as percent to the total households in the country. In the first step, using the PPS method the enumeration units (i.e., primary sample units to be surveyed during the year) were selected. 2007 sample includes 48 urban and 18 rural enumeration areas per month. 2) The oversample was drawn from the list of villages included in MCA-Armenia Rural Roads Rehabilitation Project. The enumeration areas of villages that were already in the core sample were excluded from that list. From the remaining enumeration areas 18 enumeration areas were selected per month. Thus, the rural sample size was doubled. 3) After merging the core sample and oversample, the survey households were selected in the second step. 656 households were surveyed per month, from which 368 from urban and 288 from rural settlements. Each month 82 interviewers had conducted field work, and their workload included 8 households per month. In 2007 number of surveyed households was 7,872 (4,416 from urban and 3,456 from rural areas).
For the survey 2013 the sample frame for ILCS was designed in accordance with the database of addresses of all private households in the country developed on basis of the 2001 Population Census results, with the technical assistance of the World Bank. The method of systematic representative probability sampling was used to frame the sample. For the purpose of drawing the sample, the sample frame was divided into 32 strata including 12 communities of Yerevan City (currently, the administrative districts). According to this division, a two-tier sample was drawn stratified by regions and by Yerevan. All regions and Yerevan, as well as all urban and rural communities were included in the sample in accordance to the shares of their resident households within the total number of households in the country. In the first round, enumeration areas - that is primary sample units to be surveyed during the year - were selected. The ILCS 2013 sample included 32 enumeration areas in urban and 16 enumeration areas in rural communities per month. The households to be surveyed were selected in the second round. A total of 432 households were surveyed per month, of which 279 and 153 households from urban and rural communities, respectively. Every month 48 interviewers went on field work with a workload of 9 households per month.
The sample frame for 2014-2016 was designed in accordance with the database of addresses of all private households in the country developed on basis of the 2011 Population Census results, with the technical assistance of the World Bank. The method of systematic representative probability sampling was used to frame the sample.
For drawing the sample, the sample frame was divided into 32 strata including 12 communities of Yerevan City (currently, the administrative districts). According to this division, a two-tier sample was drawn stratified by regions and by Yerevan. All regions and Yerevan, as well as all urban and rural communities were included in the sample in accordance to the shares of their resident households within the total number of households in the country. In the first round, enumeration areas - that is primary sample units to be surveyed during the year - were selected. The ILCS 2014 sample included 30 enumeration areas in urban and 18 enumeration areas in rural communities per month.
The method of representative probability sampling was used to frame the sample. At regional level, all communities were grouped into two categories - towns and villages. According to this division, a two-tier sample was drawn stratified by regions and by Yerevan. All regions and Yerevan, as well as all rural and urban communities were included in the sample in accordance to the shares of their resident households within the total number of households in the country. In the first round, enumeration districts - that is primary sample units to be surveyed during the year - were selected. The ILCS 2015 sample included 30 enumeration districts in urban and 18 enumeration districts in rural communities per month.
Face-to-face [f2f]
The Questionnaire is filled in by the interviewer during the least five visits to households per month. During face-to-face interviews with the household head or another knowledgeable adult member, the interviewer collects information on the composition and housing conditions of the household, the employment status, educational level and health condition of the members, availability and use of land, livestock, and agricultural machinery, monetary and commodity flows between households, and other information.
The 2015 survey questionnaire had the following sections: (1) "List of Household Members", (2) "Migration", (3) "Housing and Dwelling Conditions", (4) "Employment", (5) "Education", (6) "Agriculture", (7) "Food Production", (8) "Monetary and Commodity Flows between Households", (9) "Health (General) and Healthcare", (10) "Debts", (11) "Subjective Assessment of Living Conditions", (12) "Provision of Services", (13) "Social Assistance", (14) "Households as Employers for Service Personnel", and (15) "Household Monthly Consumption of Energy Resources".
The Diary is completed directly by the household for one month. Every day the household would record all its expenditures on food, non-food products and services, also giving a detailed description of such purchases; e.g. for food products the name, quantity, cost, and place of purchase of the product is recorded. Besides, the household records its consumption of food products received and used from its own land and livestock, as well as from other sources (e.g. gifts, humanitarian aid). Non-food products and services purchased or received for free are also recorded in the diary. Then, the household records its income received during the month. At the end of the month, information on rarely used food products, durable goods and ceremonies is recorded, as well. The records in the diary are verified by the interviewer in the course of 5
The aim of the Human Development Report is to stimulate global, regional and national policy-relevant discussions on issues pertinent to human development. Accordingly, the data in the Report require the highest standards of data quality, consistency, international comparability and transparency. The Human Development Report Office (HDRO) fully subscribes to the Principles governing international statistical activities.
The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.
The 2019 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) data shed light on the number of people experiencing poverty at regional, national and subnational levels, and reveal inequalities across countries and among the poor themselves.Jointly developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) at the University of Oxford, the 2019 global MPI offers data for 101 countries, covering 76 percent of the global population. The MPI provides a comprehensive and in-depth picture of global poverty – in all its dimensions – and monitors progress towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 – to end poverty in all its forms. It also provides policymakers with the data to respond to the call of Target 1.2, which is to ‘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 definition'.
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.