As surveyed by Infocus Mekong in 2020, around ***** percent of urban respondents in Vietnam had an income of at least 30 million Vietnamese dong. Meanwhile, *** percent of the respondents living in rural areas claimed to have the same income level. On average, the urban population earned about twice as much as the rural population in Vietnam that year.

As surveyed by Infocus Mekong in 2020, around ** percent of households in rural areas of Vietnam had an income from ********** to ********** Vietnamese dong. Meanwhile, **** percent of them stated to have an income of under ********* Vietnamese dong.

Rising income inequality challenges economic and social stability in developing countries. For China, the fastest-growing global digital economy, it could be an effective tool to promote inclusive development, narrowing urban–rural income disparity. It investigates the role of digital financial inclusion (DFI) in narrowing the urban–rural income gap. The study uses panel data from 52 counties in Zhejiang Province, China, from 2014 to 2020. The results show that the development of DFI significantly reduces rural–urban and rural income inequality. The development of DFI helps optimize industrial structure and upgrade the internal structure of agriculture, facilitating income growth for people in rural areas. Such effects are greater in poorer counties. Our findings provide insights into why rapid DFI and the narrowing of the rural–urban income disparity exist in China. Moreover, our results provide clear policy implications on how to reduce the disparity. The most compelling suggestion is that promoting the optimization of industrial structure through DFI is crucial for narrowing the urban–rural income gap.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Rural Valley, PA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 19,555, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 171,812. This indicates that the top earners earn 9 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 264,421, which is 153.90% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 1352.19% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Rural Valley median household income. You can refer the same here

The purpose of this project was to measure and estimate the distribution of income in both rural and urban areas of the People's Republic of China. The principal investigators based their definition of income on cash payments and on a broad range of additional components: payments in kind valued at market prices, agricultural output produced for self-consumption valued at market prices, the value of ration coupons and other direct subsidies, and the imputed value of housing. The rural component of this collection consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis. Individual rural respondents reported on their employment status, level of education, Communist Party membership, type of employer (e.g., public, private, or foreign), type of economic sector in which employed, occupation, whether they held a second job, retirement status, monthly pension, monthly wage, and other sources of income. Demographic variables include relationship to householder, gender, age, and student status. Rural households reported extensively on the character of the household and residence. Information was elicited on type of terrain surrounding the house, geographic position, type of house, and availability of electricity. Also reported were sources of household income (e.g., farming, industry, government, rents, and interest), taxes paid, value of farm, total amount and type of cultivated land, financial assets and debts, quantity and value of various crops (e.g., grains, cotton, flax, sugar, tobacco, fruits and vegetables, tea, seeds, nuts, lumber, livestock and poultry, eggs, fish and shrimp, wool, honey, and silkworm cocoons), amount of grain purchased or provided by a collective, use of chemical fertilizers, gasoline, and oil, quantity and value of agricultural machinery, and all household expenditures (e.g., food, fuel, medicine, education, transportation, and electricity). The urban component of this collection also consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis. Individual urban respondents reported on their economic status within the household, Communist Party membership, sex, age, nature of employment, and relationship to the household head. Information was collected on all types and sources of income from each member of the household whether working, nonworking, or retired, all revenue received by owners of private or individual enterprises, and all in-kind payments (e.g., food and durable and non-durable goods). Urban households reported total income (including salaries, interest on savings and bonds, dividends, rent, leases, alimony, gifts, and boarding fees), all types and values of food rations received, and total debt. Information was also gathered on household accommodations and living conditions, including number of rooms, total living area in square meters, availability and cost of running water, sanitary facilities, heating and air-conditioning equipment, kitchen availability, location of residence, ownership of home, and availability of electricity and telephone. Households reported on all of their expenditures including amounts spent on food items such as wheat, rice, edible oils, pork, beef and mutton, poultry, fish and seafood, sugar, and vegetables by means of both coupons in state-owned stores and at free market prices. Information was also collected on rents paid by the households, fuel available, type of transportation used, and availability and use of medical and child care. The Chinese Household Income Project collected data in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. ICPSR holds data from the first three collections, and information about these can be found on the series description page. Data collected in 2007 are available through the China Institute for Income Distribution.

In 2024, the average annual per capita disposable income of rural households in China was approximately ****** yuan, roughly ** percent of the income of urban households. Although living standards in China’s rural areas have improved significantly over the past 20 years, the income gap between rural and urban households is still large. Income increase of China’s households From 2000 to 2020, disposable income per capita in China increased by around *** percent. The fast-growing economy has inevitably led to the rapid income increase. Furthermore, inflation has been maintained at a lower rate in recent years compared to other countries. While the number of millionaires in China has increased, many of its population are still living in humble conditions. Consequently, the significant wealth gap between China’s rich and poor has become a social problem across the country. However, in recent years rural areas have been catching up and disposable income has been growing faster than in the cities. This development is also reflected in the Gini coefficient for China, which has decreased since 2008. Urbanization in China The urban population in China surpassed its rural population for the first time in 2011. In fact, the share of the population residing in urban areas is continuing to increase. This is not surprising considering remote, rural areas are among the poorest areas in China. Currently, poverty alleviation has been prioritized by the Chinese government. The measures that the government has taken are related to relocation and job placement. With the transformation and expansion of cities to accommodate the influx of city dwellers, neighboring rural areas are required for the development of infrastructure. Accordingly, land acquisition by the government has resulted in monetary gain by some rural households.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the distribution of median household income among distinct age brackets of householders in Rural Hall. Based on the latest 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates from the American Community Survey, it displays how income varies among householders of different ages in Rural Hall. It showcases how household incomes typically rise as the head of the household gets older. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into age-based household income trends and explore the variations in incomes across households.

Key observations: Insights from 2023

In terms of income distribution across age cohorts, in Rural Hall, the median household income stands at $60,457 for householders within the 25 to 44 years age group, followed by $45,500 for the 45 to 64 years age group. Notably, householders within the 65 years and over age group, had the lowest median household income at $39,021.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. All incomes have been adjusting for inflation and are presented in 2023-inflation-adjusted dollars.

Age groups classifications include:

• Under 25 years
• 25 to 44 years
• 45 to 64 years
• 65 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Of The Head Of Household: This column presents the age of the head of household
• Median Household Income: Median household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific age group

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Rural Hall median household income by age. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Rural Valley median household income by race. The dataset can be utilized to understand the racial distribution of Rural Valley income.

Content

The dataset will have the following datasets when applicable

Please note: The 2020 1-Year ACS estimates data was not reported by the Census Bureau due to the impact on survey collection and analysis caused by COVID-19. Consequently, median household income data for 2020 is unavailable for large cities (population 65,000 and above).

• Rural Valley, PA median household income breakdown by race betwen 2011 and 2021
• Median Household Income by Racial Categories in Rural Valley, PA (2021, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Interested in deeper insights and visual analysis?

Explore our comprehensive data analysis and visual representations for a deeper understanding of Rural Valley median household income by race. You can refer the same here

On average, in 2023, an urban inhabitant earned approximately **** million Vietnamese dong per month, whereas a rural inhabitant earned around **** million Vietnamese dong monthly. This indicated a slight increase from the previous year. A monthly income of a rural inhabitant was *** million Vietnamese dong lower than that of the urban monthly average per capita.

DFI, RIS and urban–rural income disparity in different regions.

Abstract

This file contains data on Gini coefficients, cumulative quintile shares, explanations regarding the basis on which the Gini coefficient was computed, and the source of the information. There are two data-sets, one containing the "high quality" sample and the other one including all the information (of lower quality) that had been collected.

The database was constructed for the production of the following paper:

Deininger, Klaus and Lyn Squire, "A New Data Set Measuring Income Inequality", The World Bank Economic Review, 10(3): 565-91, 1996.

This article presents a new data set on inequality in the distribution of income. The authors explain the criteria they applied in selecting data on Gini coefficients and on individual quintile groups’ income shares. Comparison of the new data set with existing compilations reveals that the data assembled here represent an improvement in quality and a significant expansion in coverage, although differences in the definition of the underlying data might still affect intertemporal and international comparability. Based on this new data set, the authors do not find a systematic link between growth and changes in aggregate inequality. They do find a strong positive relationship between growth and reduction of poverty.

Geographic coverage

In what follows, we provide brief descriptions of main features for individual countries that are included in the data-base. Without being comprehensive, these notes are intended to indicate some of the considerations underlying our decision to include or exclude certain observations.

Argentina Various permanent household surveys, all covering urban centers only, have been regularly conducted since 1972 and are quoted in a wide variety of sources and years, e.g., for 1980 (World Bank 1992), 1985 (Altimir 1994), and 1989 (World Bank 1992). Estimates for 1963, 1965, 1969/70, 1970/71, 1974, 1975, 1980, and 1981 (Altimir 1987) are based only on Greater Buenos Aires. Estimates for 1961, 1963, 1970 (Jain 1975) and for 1970 (van Ginneken 1984) have only limited geographic coverage and do not satisfy our minimum criteria.

Despite the many urban surveys, there are no income distribution data that are representative of the population as a whole. References to national income distribution for the years 1953, 1959, and 1961(CEPAL 1968 in Altimir 1986 ) are based on extrapolation from national accounts and have therefore not been included. Data for 1953 and 1961 from Weisskoff (1970) , from Lecaillon (1984) , and from Cromwell (1977) are also excluded.

Australia Household surveys, the result of which is reported in the statistical yearbook, have been conducted in 1968/9, 1975/6, 1978/9, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1989, and 1990.

Data for 1962 (Cromwell, 1977) and 1966/67 (Sawyer 1976) were excluded as they covered only tax payers. Jain's data for 1970 was excluded because it covered income recipients only. Data from Podder (1972) for 1967/68, from Jain (1975) for the same year, from UN (1985) for 78/79, from Sunders and Hobbes (1993) for 1986 and for 1989 were excluded given the availability of the primary sources. Data from Bishop (1991) for 1981/82, from Buhman (1988) for 1981/82, from Kakwani (1986) for 1975/76, and from Sunders and Hobbes (1993) for 1986 were utilized to test for the effect of different definitions. The values for 1967 used by Persson and Tabellini and Alesina and Rodrik (based on Paukert and Jain) are close to the ones reported in the Statistical Yearbook for 1969.

Austria: In addition to data referring to the employed population (Guger 1989), national household surveys for 1987 and 1991 are included in the LIS data base. As these data do not include income from self-employment, we do not report them in our high quality data-set.

Bahamas Data for Ginis and shares are available for 1973, 1977, 1979, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993 in government reports on population censuses and household budget surveys, and for 1973 and 1975 from UN (1981). Estimates for 1970 (Jain 1975), 1973, 1975, 1977, and 1979 (Fields 1989) have been excluded given the availability of primary sources.

Bangladesh Data from household surveys for 1973/74, 1976/77, 1977/78, 1981/82, and 1985/86 are available from the Statistical Yearbook, complemented by household-survey based information from Chen (1995) and the World Development Report. Household surveys with rural coverage for 1959, 1960, 1963/64, 1965, 1966/67 and 1968/69, and with urban coverage for 1963/64, 1965, 1966/67, and 1968/69 are also available from the Statistical yearbook. Data for 1963/64 ,1964 and 1966/67, (Jain 1975) are not included due to limited geographic coverage, We also excluded secondary sources for 1973/74, 1976/77, 1981/82 (Fields 1989), 1977 (UN 1981), 1983 (Milanovic 1994), and 1985/86 due to availability of the primary source.

Barbados National household surveys have been conducted in 1951/52 and 1978/79 (Downs, 1988). Estimates based on personal tax returns, reported consistently for 1951-1981 (Holder and Prescott, 1989), had to be excluded as they exclude the non-wage earning population. Jain's figure (used by Alesina and Rodrik) is based on the same source.

Belgium Household surveys with national coverage are available for 1978/79 (UN 1985), and for 1985, 1988, and 1992 (LIS 1995). Earlier data for 1969, 1973, 1975, 1976 and 1977 (UN 1981) refer to taxable households only and are not included.

Bolivia The only survey with national coverage is the 1990 LSMS (World Development Report). Surveys for 1986 and 1989 cover the main cities only (Psacharopoulos et al. 1992) and are therefore not included. Data for 1968 (Cromwell 1977) do not refer to a clear definition and is therefore excluded.

Botswana The only survey with national coverage was conducted in 1985-1986 (Chen et al 1993); surveys in 74/75 and 85/86 included rural areas only (UN 1981). We excluded Gini estimates for 1971/72 that refer to the economically active population only (Jain 1975), as well as 1974/75 and 1985/86 (Valentine 1993) due to lack of national coverage or consistency in definition.

Brazil Data from 1960, 1970, 1974/75, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989 are available from the statistical yearbook, in addition to data for 1978 (Fields 1987) and for 1979 (Psacharopoulos et al. 1992). Other sources have been excluded as they were either not of national coverage, based on wage earners only, or because a more consistent source was available.

Bulgaria: Data from household surveys are available for 1963-69 (in two year intervals), for 1970-90 (on an annual basis) from the Statistical yearbook and for 1991 - 93 from household surveys by the World Bank (Milanovic and Ying).

Burkina Faso A priority survey has been undertaken in 1995.

Central African Republic: Except for a household survey conducted in 1992, no information was available.

Cameroon The only data are from a 1983/4 household budget survey (World Bank Poverty Assessment).

Canada Gini- and share data for the 1950-61 (in irregular intervals), 1961-81 (biennially), and 1981-91 (annually) are available from official sources (Statistical Yearbook for years before 1971 and Income Distributions by Size in Canada for years since 1973, various issues). All other references seem to be based on these primary sources.

Chad: An estimate for 1958 is available in the literature, and used by Alesina and Rodrik and Persson and Tabellini but was not included due to lack of primary sources.

Chile The first nation-wide survey that included not only employment income was carried out in 1968 (UN 1981). This is complemented by household survey-based data for 1971 (Fields 1989), 1989, and 1994. Other data that refer either only to part of the population or -as in the case of a long series available from World Bank country operations- are not clearly based on primary sources, are excluded.

China Annual household surveys from 1980 to 1992, conducted separately in rural and urban areas, were consolidated by Ying (1995), based on the statistical yearbook. Data from other secondary sources are excluded due to limited geographic and population coverage and data from Chen et al (1993) for 1985 and 1990 have not been included, to maintain consistency of sources..

Colombia The first household survey with national coverage was conducted in 1970 (DANE 1970). In addition, there are data for 1971, 1972, 1974 CEPAL (1986), and for 1978, 1988/89, and 1991 (World Bank Poverty Assessment 1992 and Chen et al. 1995). Data referring to years before 1970 -including the 1964 estimate used in Persson and Tabellini were excluded, as were estimates for the wage earning population only.

Costa Rica Data on Gini coefficients and quintile shares are available for 1961, 1971 (Cespedes 1973),1977 (OPNPE 1982), 1979 (Fields 1989), 1981 (Chen et al 1993), 1983 (Bourguignon and Morrison 1989), 1986 (Sauma-Fiatt 1990), and 1989 (Chen et al 1993). Gini coefficients for 1971 (Gonzalez-Vega and Cespedes in Rottenberg 1993), 1973 and 1985 (Bourguignon and Morrison 1989) cover urban areas only and were excluded.

Cote d'Ivoire: Data based on national-level household surveys (LSMS) are available for 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1995. Information for the 1970s (Schneider 1991) is based on national accounting information and therefore excluded

Cuba Official information on income distribution is limited. Data from secondary sources are available for 1953, 1962, 1973, and 1978, relying on personal wage income, i.e. excluding the population that is not economically active (Brundenius 1984).

Czech Republic Household surveys for 1993 and 1994 were obtained from Milanovic and Ying. While it is in principle possible to go back further, splitting national level surveys for the former Czechoslovakia into their independent parts, we decided not to do so as the same argument could be used to

The purpose of this project was to measure and estimate the distribution of personal income in both rural and urban areas of the People's Republic of China. The principal investigators based their definition of income on cash payments and on a broad range of additional components: payments in kind valued at market prices, agricultural output produced for self-consumption valued at market prices, the value of food and other direct subsidies, and the imputed value of housing services. The rural component of this collection consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis (Part 1) and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis (Part 2). Individual rural respondents reported on their employment status, level of education, Communist Party membership, type of employer (e.g., public, private, or foreign), type of economic sector in which they were employed, occupation, whether they held a second job, retirement status, monthly pension, monthly wage, and other sources of income. Demographic variables include relationship to householder, gender, age, and student status. Rural households reported extensively on the character of the household and residence. Information was elicited on type of terrain surrounding the house, geographic position, type of house, and availability of electricity. Also reported were sources of household income (e.g., farming, industry, government, rents, and interest), taxes paid, value of farm, total amount and type of cultivated land, financial assets and debts, quantity and value of various crops, amount of grain purchased or provided by a collective, use of chemical fertilizers, gasoline, and oil, quantity and value of agricultural machinery, and all household expenditures (e.g., food, fuel, medicine, education, transportation, and electricity). The urban component of this collection also consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis (Part 3) and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis (Part 4). Individual urban respondents reported on their economic status within the household, Communist Party membership, sex, age, nature of employment, and relationship to the household head. Information was collected on all types and sources of income from each member of the household whether working, nonworking, or retired, all revenue received by owners of private or individual enterprises, and all in-kind payments (e.g., food, durable goods, and nondurable goods). Urban households reported total income (including salaries, interest on savings and bonds, dividends, rent, leases, alimony, gifts, and boarding fees), all types and values of food subsidies received, and total debt. Information was also gathered on household accommodations and living conditions, including number of rooms, total living area in square meters, availability and cost of running water, sanitary facilities, heating and air-conditioning equipment, kitchen availability, location of residence, ownership of home, and availability of electricity and telephone. Households reported on all their expenditures including amounts spent on food items such as wheat, rice, edible oils, pork, beef and mutton, poultry, fish and seafood, sugar, and vegetables by means of coupons in state-owned stores and at free market prices. Information was also collected on rents paid by the households, fuel available, type of transportation used, and availability and use of medical and child care. The Chinese Household Income Project collected data in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. ICPSR holds data from the first three collections, and information about these can be found on the series description page. Data collected in 2007 are available through the China Institute for Income Distribution.

Abstract

The Household Income and Expenditure Survey is a survey collecting data on income, consumption and expenditure patterns of households, in accordance with methodological principles of statistical enquiries, which are linked to demographic and socio-economic characteristics of households. A Household Income and expenditure Survey is the sole source of information on expenditure, consumption and income patterns of households, which is used to calculate poverty and income distribution indicators. It also serves as a statistical infrastructure for the compilation of the national basket of goods used to measure changes in price levels. Furthermore, it is used for updating of the national accounts.

The main objective of the NHIES 2009/2010 is to comprehensively describe the levels of living of Namibians using actual patterns of consumption and income, as well as a range of other socio-economic indicators based on collected data. This survey was designed to inform policy making at the international, national and regional levels within the context of the Fourth National Development Plan, in support of monitoring and evaluation of Vision 2030 and the Millennium Development Goals. The NHIES was designed to provide policy decision making with reliable estimates at regional levels as well as to meet rural - urban disaggregation requirements.

Geographic coverage

National Coverage

Analysis unit

Individuals and Households

Universe

Every week of the four weeks period of a survey round all persons in the household were asked if they spent at least 4 nights of the week in the household. Any person who spent at least 4 nights in the household was taken as having spent the whole week in the household. To qualify as a household member a person must have stayed in the household for at least two weeks out of four weeks.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The targeted population of NHIES 2009/2010 was the private households of Namibia. The population living in institutions, such as hospitals, hostels, police barracks and prisons were not covered in the survey. However, private households residing within institutional settings were covered. The sample design for the survey was a stratified two-stage probability sample, where the first stage units were geographical areas designated as the Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) and the second stage units were the households. The PSUs were based on the 2001 Census EAs and the list of PSUs serves as the national sample frame. The urban part of the sample frame was updated to include the changes that take place due to rural to urban migration and the new developments in housing. The sample frame is stratified first by region followed by urban and rural areas within region. In urban areas further stratification is carried out by level of living which is based on geographic location and housing characteristics. The first stage units were selected from the sampling frame of PSUs and the second stage units were selected from a current list of households within each selected PSU, which was compiled just before the interviews.

PSUs were selected using probability proportional to size sampling coupled with the systematic sampling procedure where the size measure was the number of households within the PSU in the 2001 Population and Housing Census. The households were selected from the current list of households using systematic sampling procedure.

The sample size was designed to achieve reliable estimates at the region level and for urban and rural areas within each region. However the actual sample sizes in urban or rural areas within some of the regions may not satisfy the expected precision levels for certain characteristics. The final sample consists of 10 660 households in 533 PSUs. The selected PSUs were randomly allocated to the 13 survey rounds.

Sampling deviation

All the expected sample of 533 PSUs was covered. However a number of originally selected PSUs had to be substituted by new ones due to the following reasons.

Urban areas: Movement of people for resettlement in informal settlement areas from one place to another caused a selected PSU to be empty of households.

Rural areas: In addition to Caprivi region (where one constituency is generally flooded every year) Ohangwena and Oshana regions were badly affected from an unusual flood situation. Although this situation was generally addressed by interchanging the PSUs betweensurvey rounds still some PSUs were under water close to the end of the survey period. There were five empty PSUs in the urban areas of Hardap (1), Karas (3) and Omaheke (1) regions. Since these PSUs were found in the low strata within the urban areas of the relevant regions the substituting PSUs were selected from the same strata. The PSUs under water were also five in rural areas of Caprivi (1), Ohangwena (2) and Oshana (2) regions. Wherever possible the substituting PSUs were selected from the same constituency where the original PSU was selected. If not, the selection was carried out from the rural stratum of the particular region. One sampled PSU in urban area of Khomas region (Windhoek city) had grown so large that it had to be split into 7 PSUs. This was incorporated into the geographical information system (GIS) and one PSU out of the seven was selected for the survey. In one PSU in Erongo region only fourteen households were listed and one in Omusati region listed only eleven households. All these households were interviewed and no additional selection was done to cover for the loss in sample.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The instruments for data collection were as in the previous survey the questionnaires and manuals. Form I questionnaire collected demographic and socio-economic information of household members, such as: sex, age, education, employment status among others. It also collected information on household possessions like animals, land, housing, household goods, utilities, household income and expenditure, etc.

Form II or the Daily Record Book is a diary for recording daily household transactions. A book was administered to each sample household each week for four consecutive weeks (survey round). Households were asked to record transactions, item by item, for all expenditures and receipts, including incomes and gifts received or given out. Own produce items were also recorded. Prices of items from different outlets were also collected in both rural and urban areas. The price collection was needed to supplement information from areas where price collection for consumer price indices (CPI) does not currently take place.

Cleaning operations

The questionnaires received from the regions were registered and counterchecked at the survey head office. The data processing team consisted of Systems administrator, IT technician, Programmers, Statisticians and Data typists.

Data capturing

The data capturing process was undertakenin the following ways: Form 1 was scanned, interpreted and verified using the “Scan”, “Interpret” & “Verify” modules of the Eyes & Hands software respectively. Some basic checks were carried out to ensure that each PSU was valid and every household was unique. Invalid characters were removed. The scanned and verified data was converted into text files using the “Transfer” module of the Eyes & Hands. Finally, the data was transferred to a SQL database for further processing, using the “TranScan” application. The Daily Record Books (DRB or form 2) were manually entered after the scanned data had been transferred to the SQL database. The reason was to ensure that all DRBs were linked to the correct Form 1, i.e. each household’s Form 1 was linked to the corresponding Daily Record Book. In total, 10 645 questionnaires (Form 1), comprising around 500 questions each, were scanned and close to one million transactions from the Form 2 (DRBs) were manually captured.

Response rate

Household response rate: Total number of responding households and non-responding households and the reason for non-response are shown below. Non-contacts and incomplete forms, which were rejected due to a lot of missing data in the questionnaire, at 3.4 and 4.0 percent, respectively, formed the largest part of non-response. At the regional level Erongo, Khomas, and Kunene reported the lowest response rate and Caprivi and Kavango the highest. See page 17 of the report for a detailed breakdown of response rates by region.

Data appraisal

To be able to compare with the previous survey in 2003/2004 and to follow up the development of the country, methodology and definitions were kept the same. Comparisons between the surveys can be found in the different chapters in this report. Experiences from the previous survey gave valuable input to this one and the data collection was improved to avoid earlier experienced errors. Also, some additional questions in the questionnaire helped to confirm the accuracy of reported data. During the data cleaning process it turned out, that some households had difficulty to separate their household consumption from their business consumption when recording their daily transactions in DRB. This was in particular applicable for the guest farms, the number of which has shown a big increase during the past five years. All households with extreme high consumption were examined manually and business transactions were recorded and separated from private consumption.

In 2011, the Gini coefficient in rural India stood at ****, while urban India reached a higher score of **. The Gini coefficient, or the Gini index, measures the inequality of income distribution, whereas a higher value closer to one (or 100 percent) represent greater inequality.

Average and median population, population change and proportion of rural population, as well as selected resource income statistics of all communities (census subdivisions) and resource-based communities, for 2016 and 2021.

China % of Household grouped by Annual Net Income: RH:RMB4000-5000 data was reported at 9.750 % in 2012. This records a decrease from the previous number of 10.931 % for 2011. China % of Household grouped by Annual Net Income: RH:RMB4000-5000 data is updated yearly, averaging 10.931 % from Dec 2005 (Median) to 2012, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 12.901 % in 2009 and a record low of 9.750 % in 2012. China % of Household grouped by Annual Net Income: RH:RMB4000-5000 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Household Survey – Table CN.HD: Household Income Distribution: Rural.

This data package contains data on World Development Indicators on Population and Economy, Poverty and Shared Prosperity, People, Environment, Economy, States and Markets and Global links.

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section...Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you..Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau''s Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties..Explanation of Symbols:An ''**'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''-'' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''-'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''+'' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution..An ''***'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate..An ''*****'' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. .An ''N'' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small..An ''(X)'' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available..Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..While the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

China % of Household grouped by Annual Net Income: RH:RMB16000-17000 data was reported at 1.651 % in 2012. This records an increase from the previous number of 1.226 % for 2011. China % of Household grouped by Annual Net Income: RH:RMB16000-17000 data is updated yearly, averaging 0.820 % from Dec 2005 (Median) to 2012, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.651 % in 2012 and a record low of 0.111 % in 2005. China % of Household grouped by Annual Net Income: RH:RMB16000-17000 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Household Survey – Table CN.HD: Household Income Distribution: Rural.