Comparing the *** selected regions regarding the gini index , South Africa is leading the ranking (**** points) and is followed by Namibia with **** points. At the other end of the spectrum is Slovakia with **** points, indicating a difference of *** points to South Africa. The Gini coefficient here measures the degree of income inequality on a scale from * (=total equality of incomes) to *** (=total inequality).The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in more than *** countries and regions worldwide. All input data are sourced from international institutions, national statistical offices, and trade associations. All data has been are processed to generate comparable datasets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).

Analysis of ‘GapMinder - Income Inequality’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/psterk/income-inequality on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Content

This analysis focuses on income inequailty as measured by the Gini Index* and its association with economic metrics such as GDP per capita, investments as a % of GDP, and tax revenue as a % of GDP. One polical metric, EIU democracy index, is also included.

The data is for years 2006 - 2016

This investigation can be considered a starting point for complex questions such as:

1. Is a higher tax revenue as a % of GDP associated with less income inequality?
2. Is a higher EIU democracy index associated with less income inequality?
3. Is higher GDP per capita associated with less income inequality?
4. Is higher investments as a % of GDP associated with less income inequality?

This analysis uses the gapminder dataset from the Gapminder Foundation. The Gapminder Foundation is a non-profit venture registered in Stockholm, Sweden, that promotes sustainable global development and achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by increased use and understanding of statistics and other information about social, economic and environmental development at local, national and global levels.

*The Gini Index is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measurement of inequality. It was developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini and published in his 1912 paper Variability and Mutability.

The dataset contains data from the following GapMinder datasets:

EIU Democracy Index:

"This democracy index is using the data from the Economist Inteligence Unit to express the quality of democracies as a number between 0 and 100. It's based on 60 different aspects of societies that are relevant to democracy universal suffrage for all adults, voter participation, perception of human rights protection and freedom to form organizations and parties. The democracy index is calculated from the 60 indicators, divided into five ""sub indexes"", which are:

1. Electoral pluralism index;
2. Government index;
3. Political participation indexm;
4. Political culture index;
5. Civil liberty index.

The sub-indexes are based on the sum of scores on roughly 12 indicators per sub-index, converted into a score between 0 and 100. (The Economist publishes the index with a scale from 0 to 10, but Gapminder has converted it to 0 to 100 to make it easier to communicate as a percentage.)" https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d0noZrwAWxNBTDSfDgG06_aLGWUz4R6fgDhRaUZbDzE/edit#gid=935776888

Income: GDP per capita, constant PPP dollars

GDP per capita measures the value of everything produced in a country during a year, divided by the number of people. The unit is in international dollars, fixed 2011 prices. The data is adjusted for inflation and differences in the cost of living between countries, so-called PPP dollars. The end of the time series, between 1990 and 2016, uses the latest GDP per capita data from the World Bank, from their World Development Indicators. To go back in time before the World Bank series starts in 1990, we have used several sources, such as Angus Maddison. https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/gd001/

Investments (% of GDP)

Capital formation is a term used to describe the net capital accumulation during an accounting period for a particular country. The term refers to additions of capital goods, such as equipment, tools, transportation assets, and electricity. Countries need capital goods to replace the older ones that are used to produce goods and services. If a country cannot replace capital goods as they reach the end of their useful lives, production declines. Generally, the higher the capital formation of an economy, the faster an economy can grow its aggregate income.

Tax revenue (% of GDP)

refers to compulsory transfers to the central governement for public purposes. Does not include social security. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS

Context

Gapminder is an independent Swedish foundation with no political, religious or economic affiliations. Gapminder is a fact tank, not a think tank. Gapminder fights devastating misconceptions about global development. Gapminder produces free teaching resources making the world understandable based on reliable statistics. Gapminder promotes a fact-based worldview everyone can understand. Gapminder collaborates with universities, UN, public agencies and non-governmental organizations. All Gapminder activities are governed by the board. We do not award grants. Gapminder Foundation is registered at Stockholm County Administration Board. Our constitution can be found here.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to gapminder.org for organizing the above datasets.

Inspiration

Below are some research questions associated with the data and some initial conclusions:

Research Question 1 - Is Income Inequality Getting Worse or Better in the Last 10 Years?

Answer:

Yes, it is getting better, improving from 38.7 to 37.3

On a continent basis, all were either declining or mostly flat, except for Africa.

Research Question 2 - What Top 10 Countries Have the Lowest and Highest Income Inequality?

Answer:

Lowest: Slovenia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Norway, Slovak Republic, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Finland, Belarus,Kyrgyz Republic

Highest: Colombia, Lesotho, Honduras, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Zambia, Suriname, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa

Research Question 3 Is a higher tax revenue as a % of GDP associated with less income inequality?

Answer: No

Research Question 4 - Is Higher Income Per Person - GDP Per Capita associated with less income inequality?

Answer: No, but weak negative correlation.

Research Question 5 - Is Higher Investment as % GDP associated with less income inequality?

Answer: No

Research Question 6 - Is Higher EIU Democracy Index associated with less income inequality?

Answer: No, but weak negative correlation.

The above results suggest that there are other drivers for the overall reduction in income inequality. Futher analysis of additional factors should be undertaken.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Central African Republic CF: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data was reported at 43.000 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 56.200 % for 2008. Central African Republic CF: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data is updated yearly, averaging 56.200 % from Dec 1992 (Median) to 2021, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 61.300 % in 1992 and a record low of 43.000 % in 2021. Central African Republic CF: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Central African Republic – Table CF.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or, in some cases, consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

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

South Africa ZA: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data was reported at 63.000 % in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 63.400 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data is updated yearly, averaging 63.000 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 64.800 % in 2005 and a record low of 57.800 % in 2000. South Africa ZA: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or, in some cases, consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

South Africa ZA: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 23.500 % in 2014. This stayed constant from the previous number of 23.500 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 23.500 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 25.500 % in 2000 and a record low of 20.300 % in 2005. South Africa ZA: 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 South Africa – Table ZA.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).

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

South Africa ZA: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Total Population: 2017 PPP per day data was reported at 11.940 Intl $/Day in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 12.690 Intl $/Day for 2010. South Africa ZA: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Total Population: 2017 PPP per day data is updated yearly, averaging 12.315 Intl $/Day from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2014, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 12.690 Intl $/Day in 2010 and a record low of 11.940 Intl $/Day in 2014. South Africa ZA: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Total Population: 2017 PPP per day data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Mean consumption or income per capita (2017 PPP $ per day) used in calculating the growth rate in the welfare aggregate of total population.;World Bank, Global Database of Shared Prosperity (GDSP) (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/brief/global-database-of-shared-prosperity).;;The choice of consumption or income for a country is made according to which welfare aggregate is used to estimate extreme poverty in the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP). The practice adopted by the World Bank for estimating global and regional poverty is, in principle, to use per capita consumption expenditure as the welfare measure wherever available; and to use income as the welfare measure for countries for which consumption is unavailable. However, in some cases data on consumption may be available but are outdated or not shared with the World Bank for recent survey years. In these cases, if data on income are available, income is used. Whether data are for consumption or income per capita is noted in the footnotes. Because household surveys are infrequent in most countries and are not aligned across countries, comparisons across countries or over time should be made with a high degree of caution.

Our study draws on data from about 6500 households across fifteen regions in nine low and medium-income countries covering Africa, Asia, and Latin America to estimate the contribution of CPR-based income to poverty alleviation and inequality, based on an understanding of how CPR-based income is influenced by household assets, the abundance of CPRs and institutions of resource access. Our analysis confirms that CPR-based income makes up a significant portion of the income of the rural poor. However, elite households, generally derive more monetary benefit from CPRs not only in absolute terms but also in terms of share in household income, not because of differential access to the resource but because of their differential access to complementary productive assets and the capital-intensive nature of most technologies required for increasing returns from CPRs through markets. CPRs reduce inequality only when their use is for subsistence purposes using labour-intensive methods. For this study we created a multi-country household-level dataset on household demography, income, resource tenure by pooling data from a number of existing livelihood-environment studies under Nature4SDGs project (https://www.nature4sdgs.org/). We also collated several global datasets to generate information on the social-ecological context of each settlement as close to the time period covering original data collection as possible (i.e., 2011–2015). We have used secondary data for variables such as market access, population density and resource abundance. Using these data , we created a data file named Processed_data_for_analysis.dta in STATA for analysing our research questions. Please refer to the README file for better understanding of the data.

The current body of research on the gender-energy nexus has largely concentrated on the effects of energy poverty within households, highlighting the impact on women in domestic settings. Nonetheless, women entrepreneurs engaged in productive activities are also pivotal in adopting new energy technologies. The second version was built on the first version of the dataset and incorporated significant updates, presenting raw and processed data from 40 face-to-face interviews conducted across multiple African countries, including Nigeria, which was previously excluded. The current Version 3 includes additional data cleaning, improved consistency checks, and is the most updated and reliable version for reference or analysis compared to previous versions.

The dataset focuses on micro and small-sized enterprises with at least one female owner, offering a unified and comprehensive sample to assess energy access among women entrepreneurs in Africa and explore the potential for renewable energy adoption.

The data collection through semi-structured, face-to-face interviews occurred between February and October 2024. The interviews followed a predetermined semi-structured questionnaire designed to collect quantitative and qualitative data. The notes section explains the main methods and references used in the dataset. Distinctions are also made between primary and secondary data for appliance power ratings, ensuring transparency in cases where secondary data supplements gaps. This version (as did Version 2) includes updated technical data, such as time-of-use information for appliances, enhancing the dataset's strength in providing technical insights.

Key components of the dataset include: - Socio-economic characteristics: Enterprise location, ISIC division and industry sector classification, main production goods, gender-based ownership structures, enterprise formality (based on registration), year of establishment or business start, enterprise size (number of employees), profit margins, and business challenges related to the owner's gender.
- Energy access and use: Type of energy carriers used, subapplications, energy supply shortages, energy consumption levels, type, number, power rating of appliances used, temperature requirements, time-of-use data, and energy expenditure.
- Potential for renewable energy adoption: Type and amount of process waste, perceived barriers and drivers for renewable energy adoption, willingness to invest in or pay for new technologies, and preferred financing methods for such technologies.

South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $5.50 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data was reported at 29.200 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 27.700 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $5.50 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data is updated yearly, averaging 36.400 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 41.300 % in 1996 and a record low of 27.700 % in 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $5.50 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank: Poverty. Poverty gap at $5.50 a day (2011 PPP) is the mean shortfall in income or consumption from the poverty line $5.50 a day (counting the nonpoor as having zero shortfall), expressed as a percentage of the poverty line. This measure reflects the depth of poverty as well as its incidence.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. The aggregated numbers for low- and middle-income countries correspond to the totals of 6 regions in PovcalNet, which include low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia). See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $1.90 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data was reported at 6.200 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 4.900 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $1.90 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data is updated yearly, averaging 8.000 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 12.900 % in 1996 and a record low of 4.800 % in 2008. South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $1.90 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank: Poverty. Poverty gap at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) is the mean shortfall in income or consumption from the poverty line $1.90 a day (counting the nonpoor as having zero shortfall), expressed as a percentage of the poverty line. This measure reflects the depth of poverty as well as its incidence. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. The aggregated numbers for low- and middle-income countries correspond to the totals of 6 regions in PovcalNet, which include low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia). See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $3.20 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data was reported at 15.200 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 13.700 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $3.20 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data is updated yearly, averaging 20.000 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 25.900 % in 1996 and a record low of 13.700 % in 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $3.20 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Poverty gap at $3.20 a day (2011 PPP) is the mean shortfall in income or consumption from the poverty line $3.20 a day (counting the nonpoor as having zero shortfall), expressed as a percentage of the poverty line. This measure reflects the depth of poverty as well as its incidence.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. The aggregated numbers for low- and middle-income countries correspond to the totals of 6 regions in PovcalNet, which include low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia). See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $6.85 a Day: 2017 PPP: % data was reported at 33.400 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 31.900 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $6.85 a Day: 2017 PPP: % data is updated yearly, averaging 37.500 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 45.700 % in 2000 and a record low of 31.900 % in 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Gap at $6.85 a Day: 2017 PPP: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Poverty gap at $6.85 a day (2017 PPP) is the mean shortfall in income or consumption from the poverty line $6.85 a day (counting the nonpoor as having zero shortfall), expressed as a percentage of the poverty line. This measure reflects the depth of poverty as well as its incidence.;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).

South Africa ZA: Poverty Headcount Ratio at $2.15 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data was reported at 20.500 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 18.000 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Headcount Ratio at $2.15 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 24.400 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 36.800 % in 2000 and a record low of 18.000 % in 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Headcount Ratio at $2.15 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Poverty headcount ratio at $2.15 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $2.15 a day at 2017 purchasing power adjusted prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.;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).

South Africa ZA: Poverty Headcount Ratio at $3.65 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data was reported at 40.000 % in 2014. This records an increase from the previous number of 37.900 % for 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Headcount Ratio at $3.65 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 45.600 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2014, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 55.400 % in 2000 and a record low of 37.900 % in 2010. South Africa ZA: Poverty Headcount Ratio at $3.65 a Day: 2017 PPP: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s South Africa – Table ZA.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. Poverty headcount ratio at $3.65 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $3.65 a day at 2017 international prices.;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 global gender gap index benchmarks national gender gaps on economic, political, education, and health-based criteria. In 2025, the country offering the most gender equal conditions was Iceland, with a score of 0.93. Overall, the Nordic countries make up 3 of the 5 most gender equal countries worldwide. The Nordic countries are known for their high levels of gender equality, including high female employment rates and evenly divided parental leave. Sudan is the second-least gender equal country Pakistan is found on the other end of the scale, ranked as the least gender equal country in the world. Conditions for civilians in the North African country have worsened significantly after a civil war broke out in April 2023. Especially girls and women are suffering and have become victims of sexual violence. Moreover, nearly 9 million people are estimated to be at acute risk of famine. The Middle East and North Africa have the largest gender gap Looking at the different world regions, the Middle East and North Africa have the largest gender gap as of 2023, just ahead of South Asia. Moreover, it is estimated that it will take another 152 years before the gender gap in the Middle East and North Africa is closed. On the other hand, Europe has the lowest gender gap in the world.

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.

This dataset results from an anthropological project investigating how will-making and the formal processes of inheritance shape the passing on of property and the making of socio-economic class in Johannesburg, South Africa. While the number of people making wills is rising, and will-making is a key focus of attempts to shape citizens as legally aware individual decision-makers, most people die intestate. Appeals to state processes have popular appeal as ways to seek official protection, despite popular awareness of limited state capacity. Family dynamics are often better enforced than the law. In post-apartheid South Africa, ending segregation meant including everyone in the same legal code, but this often enshrined the norms of the white elite. Intestate succession is seen as profound injustice because it prioritises nuclear family over kin group, and asset over patrimony, even as custom norms are often used to justify male control and marginalise widows. This is made more complicated by patchy regulation and enforcement. People’s unequal abilities to navigate the system, and even manipulate it, become central determinants of who benefits and whose version of kinship is counted. I conducted extensive ethnographic research within this system, shadowing officials and other expert practitioners; sitting in on legal advice consultations; attending court hearings; interviewing state and civil-society employees, as well people encountering the system as members of the public. This was complemented by archival research to enable the analysis of information in deceased estates files across time. The dataset consists of 1) anonymized example case studies from key Johannesburg Institutions – the Master’s Office (where deceased estates are processed), the High Court, the Magistrate’s Court, legal clinics – and from interviews with practitioners and members of the public; 2) an Excel database aggregating information about inheritance from around 500 deceased estates files over Johannesburg's history, along with an illustrative example of a deceased estates file and a document showing and explaining features of the original MS Access database.

Since the end of apartheid, South Africa's black middle class has grown exponentially, as a new stratum of black citizens has moved into government and corporate employment. As more South Africans accumulate substantial property, its disbursement becomes a new terrain on which battles of kinship obligation are fought. This project approaches class reproduction through an ethnographic focus on wills and testaments: the processes through which they are made, and the disputes surrounding their execution. The result is an innovative lens that attends to the role of experts and bureaucrats in shaping the dynamics of class. It extends my interest in class reproduction, explored in my forthcoming book (CUP 2015) based on fieldwork in South Africa since 2006. In South Africa, as the post-apartheid black middle class ages and considers family futures, the project is especially timely. The project addresses key anthropological concerns. It combines political-economic (inequality) and cultural (lifestyle) perspectives on the middle class, and these with scholarship on state institutions. And it extends existing work on class and status reproduction by transcending generations. How do black middle-class South Africans pass on the property that shapes their kin's status and life chances? As will-making is promoted ever more widely, how do institutions that facilitate it inflect experiences of kinship and property before death forces the issue? How does this compare with the established white middle class? Within families, how are competing definitions of ownership, rights and entitlements judged? When expressions of future plans also become expressions of state regulation, how does this affect access to family property (e.g. township houses)? Who is included and excluded, in the bottleneck of bureaucracy and legal process? How and why are particular possessions valued? How are people's roles and entitlements constituted in the process? Amidst increasing inequality and precarity, how is will-making talked about? How have concerns about property and inheritance been reflected in the media? Given the South African black middle class's diverse history, how does will-making today compare with the past? Examining class reproduction over time means combining ethnographic and historical methods. For the former, I will begin with long-term observation in the Johannesburg High Court where disputes around wills are heard, and trace cases out from the formal probate process to fieldwork with individuals and families. Meanwhile, I will work with will consultants and lawyers, and interview judges, members of financial organisations, and the experts responsible for designing their online will templates. The former Dean of Law at Wits University (where I am a Research Associate) has expressed...

Nightlights (NTL) have been widely used as a proxy for economic activity, despite known limitations in accuracy and comparability, particularly with outdated Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) data. The emergence of newer and more precise Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) data offers potential, yet challenges persist due to temporal and spatial disparities between the two datasets. Addressing this, we employ a novel harmonized NTL dataset (VIIRS + DMSP), which provides the longest and most consistent database available to date. We evaluate the association between newly available harmonized NTL data and various indicators of economic activity at the subnational level across 34 countries in sub-Saharan Africa from 2004 to 2019. Specifically, we analyze the accuracy of the new NTL data in predicting socio-economic outcomes obtained from two sources: 1) nationally representative surveys, i.e., the household Wealth Index published by Demographic and Health Surveys, and 2) indicators derived from administrative records such as the gridded Human Development Index and Gross Domestic Product per capita. Our findings suggest that even after controlling for population density, the harmonized NTL remain a strong predictor of the wealth index. However, while urban areas show a notable association between harmonized NTL and the wealth index, this relationship is less pronounced in rural areas. Furthermore, we observe that NTL can also significantly explain variations in both GDP per capita and HDI at subnational levels.