Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is a measure of economic production, which takes the entire output of a national economy during a year and divides it by the population of that country. In the European Union, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Austria come out on top as the countries which produced the most per capita in 2023. Europe's richest countries benefit from multinational companies Many criticisms have been made of using GDP per capita as away to judge a country's economic wealth in recent years, as global capital flows have come to distort the statistics and to give a warped impression of different countries' wealth. This is most notably the case for Ireland and for Luxembourg, which while certainly high-income countries, have experienced dramatic booms in their GDP over the past two decades due to the accounting practices of the large multinational corporations which have their European headquarters in these member states, such as Facebook and Apple in Dublin, and Amazon in Luxembourg. Will the poorest countries converge towards the EU average? At the bottom of the list, two of the most recent member states of the EU, Romania and Bulgaria, come last in terms of GDP per capita. Whether these countries will be able to capitalize on their relatively low-wages to spur economic growth and experience the convergence towards the older member states of the union shown by countries such as Estonia, Czechia, and Lithuania, remains a pressing issue for these poorer member states.

This dataset provides values for GDP PER CAPITA PPP reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

As of 2025, there are nine official candidate countries for membership in the European Union, as well as Kosovo identified by the European Commission as a potential future candidate. A key element of the Copenhagen Criteria - the conditions which must be fulfilled to join the EU - is the existence of a functioning market economy in the candidate country, with the ability of the country to handle the strong competition and economic pressures which come with joining the European Single Market. While the political and administrative/institutional criteria have been considered the key stumbling block which has prevented the current candidate countries from progressing towards full membership, the current state of the economies of candidate countries is also a cause for concern. According to the most recently available data, all candidate countries have lower GDP per capita than even the poorest EU member state, Bulgaria. Ukraine, the newest candidate country, which was granted candidate status by the EU in response to Russia's invasion of the country in 2022, is the poorest candidate country, as measured by GDP per capita. This represents a serious issue, as the EU has never incorporated a country which is so far from the average economic standards of the Union. On the other hand, the chance to join the EU could provide an economic boost to Ukraine, or any other candidate country, as can be seen with the fast rising GDP per capita of countries which have joined the EU since 2004, such as Czechia, Hungary, and Poland.

For most of the 20th century, Ireland stood out as one of the poorest countries in Western Europe, not experience the same post-war boom in prosperity that was felt by virtually all other countries in the region. At the onset of the 1973-1975 Recession, Ireland's GDP per capita was less than 60 percent of GDP per capita in the European Union and less than a quarter of GDP per capita in the U.S. Catching up in the 1980s By the 1980s, a wave of foreign investment saw Ireland's export sector grow exponentially, and between 1975 and 1990, Ireland had the second-fastest growth of exports in the world (behind Japan). Additionally, as Ireland joined the European Communities in 1973, it became more integrated into the European economy; before 1973, around three-quarters of Ireland's exports went to the United Kingdom, but this fell to one-third by the 1990s. Ireland's period of industrialization was relatively short in comparison to its neighbors, as it transitioned from an agriculture-based economy to a producer of high-tech products and services. Ireland's low tax rate and other incentives also attracted many American tech companies in the 1980s, such as Apple, Intel, and Microsoft, who were keen on establishing a presence in the European Union. The Celtic Tiger Named after the Four Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan), which experienced rapid economic growth in the 1970s and 1980s, the period of prosperity between the 1990s and 2000s in Ireland has been dubbed the "Celtic Tiger." Over this time, Ireland's GDP per capita grew to exceed the average in the EU by 10 percent in 2000, and it would eventually surpass that of the U.S. in 2003. Ireland was severely impacted by the financial crisis of 2008 due to the instability of its property sector and extensive lending by banks, and it was the first European economy to go into recession. By the late 2010s, most sectors of the economy had returned to pre-recession levels, and today, Ireland's GDP per capita remains among the top in the world, second in the EU only to Luxembourg.

With a Gross Domestic Product of over 4.18 trillion Euros, the German economy was by far the largest in Europe in 2023. The similar-sized economies of the United Kingdom and France were the second and third largest economies in Europe during this year, followed by Italy and Spain. The smallest economy in this statistic is that of the small Balkan nation of Montenegro, which had a GDP of 5.7 billion Euros. In this year, the combined GDP of the 27 member states that compose the European Union amounted to approximately 17.1 trillion Euros. The big five Germany’s economy has consistently had the largest economy in Europe since 1980, even before the reunification of West and East Germany. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has had mixed fortunes during the same time period and had a smaller economy than Italy in the late 1980s. The UK also suffered more than the other major economies during the recession of the late 2000s, meaning the French economy was the second largest on the continent for some time afterward. The Spanish economy was continually the fifth-largest in Europe in this 38-year period, and from 2004 onwards, has been worth more than one trillion Euros. The smallest GDP, the highest economic growth in Europe Despite having the smallerst GDP of Europe, Montenegro emerged as the fastest growing economy in the continent, achieving an impressive annual growth rate of 4.5 percent, surpassing Turkey's growth rate of 4 percent. Overall,this Balkan nation has shown a remarkable economic recovery since the 2010 financial crisis, with its GDP projected to grow by 28.71 percent between 2024 and 2029. Contributing to this positive trend are successful tourism seasons in recent years, along with increased private consumption and rising imports. Europe's economic stagnation Malta, Albania, Iceland, and Croatia were among the countries reporting some of the highest growth rates this year. However, Europe's overall performance reflected a general slowdown in growth compared to the trend seen in 2021, during the post-pandemic recovery. Estonia experienced the sharpest negative growth in 2023, with its economy shrinking by 2.3% compared to 2022, primarily due to the negative impact of sanctions placed on its large neighbor, Russia. Other nations, including Sweden, Germany, and Finland, also recorded slight negative growth.

In 1950, at the end of the recovery period that followed the Second World War, GDP per capita across the Eastern Bloc varied greatly by country. Czechoslovakia, the most industrialized country in the Bloc after East Germany, had a GDP per capita that was 69 percent of the rate across Western European** countries. In contrast, Romania's GDP per capita was less than a quarter of the Western European average in 1950. 1950-1989 Generally speaking, Eastern European economies grew faster and made gains on those of the west (not including Mediterranean region) in the 1950s and 1960s, however, a series of recessions and increasing debts meant that this gap widened in the 1970s and 1980s. By 1989, as communism in Europe came to an end, the difference between overall GDP per capita in the Eastern and Western Blocs returned to a similar rate as in 1950, although it varied by country. The Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, three of the larger economies of those given, had a lower share of western GDP per capita in 1989 than in 1950, while the smaller economies of the Balkans saw an increase. 1989-2000 Between 1989 and 2000, the European Union's GDP per capita grew faster than in the former Eastern Bloc countries. However, the end of communism did negatively impact EU economies in the early 1990s. Poland was the only Eastern Bloc country to make gains on the west in these years, although this was more to do with its poor economy in the 1980s. The former-Soviet states, in particular, saw GDP per capita drop below one-quarter of the European Union's rate over this decade, as post-Soviet economic recovery did not realistically begin until the late 1990s.

• Most important problems in Spain. Problems that, personally, most affect you.
• Degree of information about the European Union and interest in news related to it.
• Assessment of the effect for Spain of membership of the European Union: in general and on various socio-economic aspects.
• Current and prospective European sentiment.
• Attitude towards the European Union. Opinion on European Union policy: contributes to widening the gap between rich and poor countries or contributes to narrowing it.
• Opinion on the economic position of Spain compared to the most developed countries of the European Union. Influence of Spain's membership of the European Union.
• Evaluation of the balance between what Spain contributes to the Budgets of the European Union and what it receives.
• Opinion on the Spanish Government's defence of Spanish interests vis-à-vis the European Union.
• Opinion on the degree of influence of Spain on the decisions taken in the European Union.
• Opinion on the type of government that the European Union should have.
• Attitude towards: the creation of a common army, a common government, the appointment of a European president and the harmonisation of the legal and tax systems of EU member countries.
• Degree of satisfaction with the way in which the construction of the European Union is being carried out.
• Assessment of the effects that may have, for Spain and for Europe, the incorporation of the Eastern countries to the European Union. Opinion on whether the European Union is supporting Spain in the fight against terrorism.
• Assessment of the work carried out by the Spanish Presidency during the European mandate that ended on 30 June.
• Assessment of the economic situation in Spain, current, retrospective and prospective to one year.
• Evaluation of the political situation in Spain, current, retrospective and prospective to one year. Knowledge and scale of assessment of political leaders.
• Evaluation of the management of the PP Government.
• Evaluation of the performance of the PSOE in the opposition. Knowledge and scale of assessment of the ministers that make up the Government.
• Degree of confidence inspired by Prime Minister José Ma Aznar.
• Intention to vote in general elections.
• Ideology scale of the interviewee.
• Remembrance of vote in general elections in March 2000.
• Voting fidelity in the March 2000 general election.
• Electoral volatility in March 2000 general elections.

Portugal, Spain and Bulgaria are the countries most at risk of energy poverty in the European Union. As of 2023, over one fifth of households in each country were unable to adequately heat their homes. They were followed Lithuania, where another 20 percent of households struggled to keep their houses warm.

Since the early 1970s the European Commission´s Standard & Special Eurobarometer are regularly monitoring the public opinion in the European Union member countries. Principal investigators are the Directorate-General Communication and on occasion other departments of the European Commission or the European Parliament. Over time, candidate and accession countries were included in the Standard Eurobarometer Series. Selected questions or modules may not have been surveyed in each sample. Please consult the basic questionnaire for more information on country filter instructions or other questionnaire routing filters. In this study the following modules are included: 1. Standard indicators on living conditions and expectations, 2. European Social Fund (ESF), 3. Civil justice and commercial legal proceedings in the member states and the EU, 4. Attitudes towards development aid, 5. Africa: problems, image and relation to the EU, 6. Risk issues regarding food.
Topics: 1. Standard indicators on living conditions and expectations: life satisfaction; assessment of the current situation in different areas (personal living area, national health care, retirement benefits, unemployment benefits, cost of living, relations between people of different culture, religion or nationality, dealing with inequality and poverty, affordable energy, affordable housing functioning public administration, national economic conditions, personal job situation and financial situation and national employment situation); expected development of the personal life situation in general and in the areas mentioned above and compared to the period five years ago.

1. European Social Fund (ESF): most important general issues and based on social policy and employment policy, which the European Union should address as a priority; preference for the solution of social issues for the whole EU or focus on the poorest regions and countries of the EU; awareness of the European Social Fund (ESF).

2. Civil justice and commercial legal proceedings in the member states and the EU: own involvement in civil or commercial legal proceedings with a person or a company from an EU Member State and from a non EU country; difficulty to access civil justice in another EU Member State; need for additional measures to support citizens in obtaining their rights; type of personal experience in civil or commercial legal proceedings abroad (based on marriage, children or contractual disputes); non-EU country in which the respondent had personal experience in civil or commercial proceeding; most important obstacles to start legal proceedings in another EU member State; perceived difficulties in the enforcement of a positive judgment for the respondent in another EU country; perceived encouragement by a judicial declaration (exequatur) to institute legal proceedings against a person in another EU country; importance of EU measures to simplify the procedures for enforcing court decisions in another country; knowledge of the procedure introduced by the EU to recover cross-border small claims; source of information about this process; knowledge of the European order for payment procedure (European Payment Order); source of information about this process; knowledge of common standards in the EU to qualify for legal aid (Cross-Border Civil Case); source of information on this standard; preferred EU measures for cross-border family law areas (international distinctions, control of financial matters in connection with a marriage, control of financial matters for unmarried but officially recognized couple); attitude towards the automaticall validity of an agreement on the distribution of the belongings of a divorcing couple in all other EU member states; personal experience with the presentation of documents such as birth certificate, marriage certificate or death certificate in another EU country; need to submit a translation or legalization of this document; attitude towards a universal recognition of civil status documents in the EU; preference for an automatic recognition of documents or the issuance of standard formats or improvement of mechanism for translating these documents; attitude towards general system for the recognition of adoptions.

3. Attitudes towards development aid: biggest challenges facing developing countries; attitude towards development aid; personal involvement in development aid (donations or volunteer activities); preference for international organizations or individual countries as best actors for development aid; attitude towards changes in the scope of official development aid and towards a cooperation of the EU Member States in development aid; preferred political guidelines for the alignment of development aid.

4. Africa / problems, image and relation to the EU: expected increase in the importance of Africa as a partner for the EU; most important areas of cooperation between the EU and Africa; most important problems for African countries to...

European Whole Fresh Poor Cod Production in Capture Fisheries by Country, 2023 Discover more data with ReportLinker!

Stochastic Dominance techniques are adapted and employed to study the extent and progress of Polarization, Welfare and Poverty of 101 nations over the period 1970-1995. The adaptations provide methods of comparing mass relocation by evaluating various degrees of right and left separation between distributions. The results reveal that, whilst welfare increased and then diminished and poverty diminished and then increased, polarization between rich and poor countries continued unabated throughout the period emphasizing the distinction between polarization and inequality.

Social impact of the crisis.
Topics: development of poverty in the last twelve months in: residential area, own country, European Union; estimated share of poor people in the own country (in percent); financial difficulties of the own household; changes in the last six months with regard to the affordability of: personal healthcare, childcare, long-term care; expected impact of economic and financial events on personal future pension; concern regarding the appropriateness of personal income in old age (scale); financial difficulties during the last year; expected development of the own financial situation in the next twelve months; assessment of the risk to not being able to: pay rent or mortgage on time, cope with unexpected expense of 1,000 €, repay consumer loans, pay daily consumer items; likelihood to be obliged to leave current accommodation within the next twelve months due to financial reasons; confidence to keep current job in the next twelve months; likelihood to find a new job within six months (scale).

Demography: sex; age; age at end of education; occupation; professional position; type of community; household composition and household size; current living standard (scale).

Additionally coded was: interviewer ID; language of the interview; country; date of interview; time of the beginning of the interview; duration of the interview; type of phone line; call history; region; weighting factor.

Since the early 1970s the European Commission´s Standard & Special Eurobarometer are regularly monitoring the public opinion in the European Union member countries. Principal investigators are the Directorate-General Communication and on occasion other departments of the European Commission or the European Parliament. Over time, candidate and accession countries were included in the Standard Eurobarometer Series. Selected questions or modules may not have been surveyed in each sample. Please consult the basic questionnaire for more information on country filter instructions or other questionnaire routing filters. In this study the following modules are included: 1. Poverty and social exclusion, 2. Mobile phone use in other EU countries, 3. Financial and economic crisis, 4. International trade.
Topics: 1. Poverty and social exclusion: own life satisfaction (scale); satisfaction with family life, health, job satisfaction and satisfaction with standard of living (scale); personal definition of being poor; estimated spread of poverty in the own country; estimated proportion of poor in the total population; people who live in poverty in the own residential area; estimated increase of poverty: in the living area, in the own country, in the EU and in the world; reasons for poverty in general; social and individual causes of poverty; population group with the highest risk of poverty; absolutely neccessary long-lived assets for a minimum acceptable standard of living (heating facility, adequate housing, plenty of room to life and privacy, varied meals, repair or replacement of a refrigerator, an annual family vacation, medical care, dental care, access to banking services as well as to public transport, access to modern means of communication, to leisure and cultural events, electricity, gas and tap water); perceived impairments (deprivation) caused by poverty in the own country: access to decent housing, education, health care, regular meals, bank service, modern means of communication to the labor market, maintaining a network of friends and acquaintances, as well as the chance to start the own business; assessment of the financial situation and level of future generations compared to parents’ and grandparents’ generation; attitude towards poverty: the need for action by the government, too large income differences, duty of the government for the fair redistribution of wealth, more taxes for the rich, automatic reduction of poverty through economic growth, poverty will always exist, income inequality is necessary for economic development; perceived conflict groups: rich and poor, employers and workers, young and old, different racial and ethnic groups; general trust in people and trust in the parliament and the government (scale); trust in institutions in poverty reduction: EU, national government, local authorities, NGOs, religious institutions, private companies, citizens; causes of poverty in the own country: globalisation, low economic growth, profit motive, global financial system, politics, immigration, poor social system; primarily responsible for poverty reduction; importance of the role of the EU in combating poverty; prioritized policies of the state government to combat poverty; assessment of the effectiveness of public policies to reduce poverty; opinion on the extent of financial support for the poor; preference for state or private provision of jobs; attitude towards education fees; controlling for social spending; individual responsibility or responsibility of the government (welfare state) for the supply of citizens; attitude towards the minimum wage; optimistic about the future vs. personally perceived social exclusion; perceived difficulties to get access to financial services: bank account, bank card, credit card, consumer loans and a mortgage; personal risk of over-indebtedness; attitude towards loans: easy access to interest free loans for the poor, stronger verification of borrowers by credit institutions, easier access to start-up loans for unemployed, free financial advice for the poor, possibility for every individual to open a basic bank account; affordable housing in the residential environment; extent of homelessness in the residential environment and its recent change; reasonableness of the expenditure for the homeless by the national government and the local authorities; assumed reasons for homelessness: unemployment, no affordable housing, destruction of the living space by a natural disaster, indebtedness, illness, addiction to drugs or alcohol, family breakdown, loss of a close relative, mental health problems, lack of access to social services and support facilities, and lack of identification papers or free choice of this life; probability of own homelessness; personal charity actions to support poor people: monetary donations to charities, volunteer work in charities, help with recording in emergency shelters and with job search, giving clothes to poor people, buying...

Survey concerning public opinion regarding the unification of Europe. Themes: Most important problems for one's country: domestic, agriculture, labour market, economy, standard of living, housing, education, world peace, European unity / Being abroad, travelling, countries one has visited / European unification: involvement with it, expectations regarding it's realization, expected time of realization, favouring or disapproving unification, reasons for being in favour: abolition of war, fight against communism, third power formation, bare survival of small states, economic advantages, improving standard of living, socio-political and cultural integration, historical trend, solidarity of rich and poor, scientific efficiency / Expected risks or dangers: internal tensions, dominance of certain states, cultural differences, loss of independence, economic problems, industrial relations damaged / Agreements, institutions and treaties known to respondent: European Common Market, Euratom, Coal and Steel Community, Agricultural agreement, Brussel's agreement, European Defense Community, Benelux and others / Most important issues for European community at present: entry of Great Britain, joining by other countries, agricultural policy, common market formation, adjustment of wages, differences of opinion, east-west relations, political unification, colonial relationships / Media through which respondent stays informed about these matters / Achievements regarding unification: tariffs, borders, labour mobility, trade, industrial cooperation, traffic & transport, scientific & cultural exchange, agriculture, contacts politicians, defense cooperation / Perceived effects of European cooperation / Memberhip of EC advantageous or not and for which social groups specifically / Preference regarding several policy alternatives: abolition of tariffs, labour mobility, harmonizing educational qualifications, joint foreign policy, joint scientific research, agricultural policy, harmonized social benefits, support for poor regions, helping african countries / Are they already provided for? / Main purpose of united Europe / Knowledge of foreign languages / Extra background variables for Germany only: social status, household size, marital status, religious denomination and refugee status. Background variables: basic characteristics/ residence/ household characteristics/ occupation/employment/ income/capital assets/ education/ politics

Using as-if random assignment in individual interview dates for the European Social Survey, we examine how distance to elections and Europe's economic crisis affect attitudes towards immigration. We find that during the financial crisis, proximity to elections more than doubles the probability of expressing strong anti-immigration sentiments towards immigrants from "poor countries." However, this relationship reverses for immigration of coethnics, with proximity to elections being associated with more than twice as favorable attitudes. Our results lead us to believe that these changes are driven by a reversion to identity politics due to the politicization of ``out groups'' during periods of economic hardship.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The European Values Study (EVS) and World Values Survey (WVS) series is designed to enable a cross-national, cross-cultural comparison of values and norms on a wide variety of topics and to monitor changes in values and attitudes across the globe. The WVS is one of the world's most extensive and most widely used social surveys. Since 1981, it has captured the views of almost 400,000 respondents in over 110 countries, covering topics including cultural identity, migration, trust, empathy, tolerance, media consumption, political interest, the environment and more.

These surveys show pervasive changes in what people want out of life and what they believe. To monitor these changes, the EVS/WVS has executed seven waves of surveys to date at various times between 1981 and 2022. Representative national samples of each society's public are interviewed using a standardised questionnaire covering various social, economic, cultural and religious topics. The countries included in these surveys cover the full range from very poor countries to very rich ones, from authoritarian systems to liberal democracies, covering all major cultural zones.

Further information about each survey series can be found on the EVS and WVS websites.

Background to the European Values Studies
The European Values Study (EVS) is a large-scale, cross-national and longitudinal survey of moral, religious, political and social values. The project was designed to investigate the nature and inter-relationship of value systems, their degree of homogeneity, and the extent to which they are subject to change across time.
To date there have been 3 waves, the first carried out in 1981, the second in 1990 and the third in 1999/2000.
The 1981 survey was carried out in ten member states of the European Community. After the initial fieldwork the survey was carried out in a further 16 countires (Argentina, Australia, Chile, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Malta, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, United States and parts of the Soviet Union).
The 1990 survey was carried out in all European countries as well as the United States and Canada.The third EVS was carried out in Europe.
Further information can be found on the EVS web pages

Northern Ireland European Values Survey, 1999
The aim of this study was the inclusion of Northern Ireland as a fully participant member of the 1999 European Values Study (EVS). The survey was carried out by means of face-to-face interviews with a sample of 1000 randomly-selected adults, representative of the adult population of Northern Ireland. The study was based on an adapted version of the 1999 wave of the EVS, which has now been completed in most countries of western and eastern Europe, including the Republic of Ireland. As in previous EVS studies, the core questions focus on values and attitudes in areas such as religion, ethics, politics, work motivation, family and life-style. In addition to these core elements, however, the Northern Ireland survey also included and additional range of items on aspects of culture and identity peculiar to the island of Ireland. For example, respondents in this survey and the Republic of Ireland EVS wave (not currently held at the UK Data Archive) were questioned about their views on various aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and about their attitudes to national identity. Special care was taken to ensure that these additional questions were relevant within and across the two societies.

These data are also included in European and World Values Survey Four-wave Integrated Data File, 1981-2004, which is available for online analysis and download. Please see SN: 5488 for details.



Main Topics:

Topics covered include attitudes to work, religion, social groups, local communities, environmental protection, voluntary organisations, government, politics and democracy, family and friends, life satisfaction, human needs, marriage, children, concerns over the troubled situation in Northern Ireland, paramilitary violence, the Good Friday Agreement, political developments and devolved government and associated views on national identity. A range of demographic information was also collected.

Standard Measures
Previous EVS measures from the 1981 and 1990 studies on values and attitudes in areas such as religion, ethics, politics, work, motivation, family and life-style were used.

Over the past decade, Albania has been undergoing a transition toward a market economy and a more open society. It has faced severe internal and external challenges, such as lack of basic infrastructure, rapid collapse of output and inflation rise after the collapse of the communist regime, turmoil during the 1997 pyramid crisis, and social and economic instability because of the 1999 Kosovo crisis. Despite these shocks, Albanian economy has recovered from a very low income level through a sustained growth during the past few years, even though it remains one of the poorest countries in Europe, with GDP per capita at around 1,300$. Based on the Living Standard Measurement Study (LSMS) 2002 survey data (wave 1, henceforth), for the first time in Albania INSTAT has computed an absolute poverty line on a nationally representative poverty survey at household level. Based on this welfare measure, one quarter (25.4 percent) of the Albanian population, or close to 790,000 individuals, were defined as poor in 2002. The distribution of poverty is also disproportionately rural, as 68 percent of the poor are in rural areas, against 32 percent in urban areas (as compared to a total urban population well over 40 percent). These estimates are quite sensitive to the choice of the poverty line, as there are a large number of households clustered around the poverty line. Income related poverty is compounded by the severe lack of access to basic infrastructure, education and health services, clean water, etc., and the ability of the Government to address these issues is complicated by high levels of internal and external migration that are not well understood. The availability of a nationally representative survey is crucial as the paucity of household-level information has been a constraining factor in the design, implementation and evaluation of economic and social programs in Albania. Two recent surveys carried out by the Albanian Institute of Statistics (INSTAT) ?the 1998 Living Conditions Survey (LCS) and the 2000 Household Budget Survey (HBS)? drew attention, once again, to the need for accurately measuring household welfare according to well-accepted standards, and for monitoring these trends on a regular basis. This target is well-achieved by drawing information over time on a panel component of LSMS 2002 households, namely the Albanian Panel Survey (APS), conducted in 2003 and 2004. An increasing attention to the policies aimed at achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is paid by the National Parliament of Albania, recently witnessed by the resolution approved in July 2003, where it pushes ?[...] the total commitment of both state structures and civil society to achieve the MDGs in Albania by 2015?. The path towards a sustained growth is constantly monitored through the National Reports on Progress toward Achieving the MDGs, which involves a close collaboration of the UN with the national institutions, led by the National Strategy for Social and Economic Development (NSSED) Department of the Ministry of Finance. Also, in the process leading to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP; also known in Albania as Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy, GPRS), the Government of Albania reinforced its commitment to strengthening its own capacity to collect and analyze on a regular basis information it needs to inform policy-makers. In its first phase (2001-2006), this monitoring system will include the following data collection instruments: (i) Population and Housing Census; (ii) Living Standards Measurement Surveys every 3 years, and (iii) annual panel surveys. The focus during this first phase of the monitoring system is on a periodic LSMS (in 2002 and 2005), followed by panel surveys on a sub-sample of LSMS households (APS 2003, 2004 and 2006), drawing heavily on the 2001 census information. Here our target is to illustrate the main characteristics of the APS 2004 data with reference to the LSMS. The survey work was undertaken by the Living Standards Unit of INSTAT, with the technical assistance of the World Bank.

Many of Europe's largest economies have seen falling shares of their national wealth taken by the bottom 50 percent of the wealth distribution since the 1990s. Italy in particular stands out as a particularly stark case, as the bottom half owned around 10 percent of the wealth in the country in 1995, while in 2021 they owned only 2.5 percent. Russia is the other country which has seen a consistent decline in the wealth of its poorest 50 percent, with the economic crises of the 1990s causing the poor to rapidly lose their share of wealth, but without any recovery during the years of economic success in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom have seen more moderate decreases in the bottom 50 percent share, with Spain and the UK in fact showing increases in their shares during the early 2000s, as their respective housing booms inflated the wealth of the poorest, before retracting during the financial crisis and great recession. Turkey stands out as an outlier among the large European economies, as the share taken by its bottom half has more than tripled since the 1990s, now having a higher share than in Russia and Italy. This period in Turkey has been marked by rapid economic growth, modernization, and urbanization, some of which has benefitted the poorest by providing new economic opportunities.

Since 2016, the global edition of the Sustainable Development Report (SDR) has provided the most up-to-date data to track and rank the performance of all UN member states on the SDGs. This year’s edition was written by a group of independent experts at the SDG Transformation Center, an initiative of the SDSN. It focuses on the UN Summit of the Future, with an opening chapter endorsed by 100+ global scientists and practitioners. The report also includes two thematic chapters, related to SDG 17 (Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development) and SDG 2 (End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture).This year’s SDR highlights five key findings:On average, globally, only 16% of the SDG targets are on track to be achieved by 2030, with the remaining 84% demonstrating limited or a reversal of progress. At the global level, SDG progress has been stagnant since 2020, with SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG14 (Life Below Water), SDG15 (Life on Land) and SDG16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) particularly off-track. Globally, the five SDG targets on which the highest proportion of countries show a reversal of progress since 2015 include: obesity rate (under SDG 2), press freedom (under SDG 16), the red list index (under SDG 15), sustainable nitrogen management (under SDG 2), and – due in a large part to the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors that may vary across countries – life expectancy at birth (under SDG 3). Goals and targets related to basic access to infrastructure and services, including SDG9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), show slightly more positive trends, although progress remains too slow and uneven across countries.The pace of SDG progress varies significantly across country groups. Nordic countries continue to lead on SDG achievement, with BRICS demonstrating strong progress and poor and vulnerable nations lagging far behind. Similar to past years, European countries – notably Nordic countries – top the 2024 SDG Index. Finland ranks number 1 on the SDG Index, followed by Sweden (#2), Denmark (#3), Germany (#4), and France (#5). Yet, even these countries face significant challenges in achieving several SDGs. Average SDG progress in BRICS (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China, and South Africa) and BRICS+ (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) since 2015 has been faster than the world average. In addition, East and South Asia has emerged as the region that has made the most SDG progress since 2015. By contrast, the gap between the world average SDG Index and the performance of the poorest and most vulnerable countries, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS), has widened since 2015.Sustainable development remains a long-term investment challenge. Reforming the Global Financial Architecture is more urgent than ever. The world requires many essential public goods that far transcend the nation-state. Low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) urgently need to gain access to affordable long-term capital so that they can invest at scale to achieve their sustainable development objectives. Mobilizing the necessary levels of finance will require new institutions, new forms of global financing — including global taxation —, and new priorities for global financing, such as investing in quality education for all. The report presents five complementary strategies to reform the Global Financial Architecture.Global challenges require global cooperation. Barbados ranks the highest in its commitment to UN-based multilateralism; the United States ranks last. As with the challenge of SDGs, strengthening multilateralism requires metrics and monitoring. The report’s new Index of countries’ support to UN-based multilateralism (UN-Mi) ranks countries based on their engagement with the UN system including treaty ratification, votes at the UN General Assembly, membership in UN organizations, participation in conflicts and militarization, use of unilateral sanctions and financial contributions to the UN. The five countries most committed to UN-based multilateralism are: Barbados (#1), Antigua and Barbuda (#2), Uruguay (#3), Mauritius (#4), and the Maldives (#5). By contrast, the United States (#193), Somalia (#192), South Sudan (#191), Israel (#190), and the Democratic Republic of Korea (#189) rank the lowest on the UN-Mi.SDG targets related to food and land systems are particularly off-track. The SDR presents new FABLE pathways to support sustainable food and land systems. Globally, 600 million people will still suffer from hunger by 2030, obesity is increasing globally, and greenhouse gas emissions from Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) represent almost a quarter of annual global GHG emissions. The new FABLE pathways brought together more than 80 local researchers across 22 countries to assess how 16 targets related to food security, climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and water quality could be achieved by 2030 and 2050. The continuation of current trends widens the gap with targets related to climate mitigation, biodiversity, and water quality. Pursuing commitments that have been already taken by countries would improve the situation, but they are still largely insufficient. Significant progress is possible but requires several dramatic changes: 1) avoid overconsumption beyond recommended levels and limit animal-based protein consumption with dietary shifts compatible with cultural preferences; 2) invest to foster productivity, particularly for products and areas with strong demand growth; and 3) implement inclusive, robust, and transparent monitoring systems to halt deforestation. Our sustainable pathway avoids up to 100 million hectares of deforestation by 2030 and 100 Gt CO2 emissions by 2050. Additional measures would be needed to avoid trade-offs with on-farm employment and water pollution due to excessive fertilizer application and ensure that no one is left behind, particularly to end hunger.About the AuthorsProf. Jeffrey SachsDirector, SDSN; Project Director of the SDG IndexJeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned professor of economics, leader in sustainable development, senior UN advisor, bestselling author, and syndicated columnist whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 100 countries. He is the co-recipient of the 2015 Blue Planet Prize, the leading global prize for environmental leadership, and many other international awards and honors. He has twice been named among Time magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders. He was called by the New York Times, “probably the most important economist in the world,” and by Time magazine, “the world’s best known economist.” A survey by The Economist in 2011 ranked Professor Sachs as amongst the world’s three most influential living economists of the first decade of the 21st century.Professor Sachs serves as the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. He is University Professor at Columbia University, the university’s highest academic rank. During 2002 to 2016 he served as the Director of the Earth Institute. Sachs is Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals, and previously advised UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on both the Sustainable Development Goals and Millennium Development Goals and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals.Guillaume LafortuneDirector, SDSN Paris; Scientific Co-Director of the SDG IndexGuillaume Lafortune took up his duties as Director of SDSN Paris in January 2021. He joined SDSN in 2017 to coordinate the production of the Sustainable Development Report and other projects on SDG data and statistics.Previously, he has served as an economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) working on public governance reforms and statistics. He was one of the lead advisors for the production of the 2015 and 2017 flagship statistical report Government at a Glance. He also contributed to analytical work related to public sector efficiency, open government data and citizens’ satisfaction with public services. Earlier, Guillaume worked as an economist at the Ministry of Economic Development in the Government of Quebec (Canada). Guillaume holds a M.Sc in public administration from the National School of Public Administration (ENAP) in Montreal and a B.Sc in international economics from the University of Montreal.Contact: EmailGrayson FullerManager, SDG Index & Data team, SDSNGrayson Fuller is the manager of the SDG Index and of the team working on SDG data and statistics at SDSN. He is co-author of the Sustainable Development Report, for which he manages the data, coding, and statistical analyses. He also coordinates the production of regional and subnational editions of the SDG Index, in addition to other statistical reports, in collaboration with national governments, NGOs and international organizations such as the WHO, UNDP and the European Commission. Grayson received his Masters degree in Economic Development at Sciences Po Paris. He holds a Bachelors in Romance Languages and Latin American Studies from Harvard University, where he graduated cum laude. Grayson has lived in several Latin American countries and speaks English, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian. He enjoys playing the violin, rock-climbing and taking care of his numerous plants in his free time.Contact: EmailAbout the PublishersDublin University PressDublin University Press is Ireland’s oldest printing and publishing house with its origins in Trinity College Dublin in 1734. The mission of Dublin University Press is to benefit society through scholarly communication, education, research and discourse. To further this goal, the Press

Topics: number of children under the age of 15 in own household; self-rated living standard of own household (scale); development of poverty in the last twelve months in: residential area, own country, European Union; estimated share of poor people in the