The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States was worth 27720.71 billion US dollars in 2023, according to official data from the World Bank. The GDP value of the United States represents 26.29 percent of the world economy. This dataset provides - United States GDP - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 2.50 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 over the same quarter of the previous year. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States GDP Annual Growth Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

In 2023, the U.S. GDP increased from the previous year to about 27.36 trillion U.S. dollars. This increase in GDP can be attributed to a continued rebound from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all goods and services produced within a country. In 2023, the United States has the largest economy in the world. See, for example, the Russian GDP for comparison.

What is GDP? Gross domestic product is one of the most important indicators used to analyze the health of an economy. GDP is defined by the BEA as the market value of goods and services produced by labor and property in the United States, regardless of nationality. It is the primary measure of U.S. production. The OECD defines GDP as an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident, institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs).

GDP and national debt

Although the United States had the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the world in 2022, this does not tell us much about the quality of life in any given country. GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) is an economic measurement that is thought to be a better method for comparing living standards across countries because it accounts for domestic inflation and variations in the cost of living.

While the United States might have the largest economy, the country that ranked highest in terms of GDP at PPP was Luxembourg, amounting to around 141,333 international dollars per capita. Singapore, Ireland, and Qatar also ranked highly on the GDP PPP list, and the United States ranked 9th in 2022.

The United States recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 122.30 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2023. This dataset provides - United States Government Debt To GDP - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Government spending in the United States was last recorded at 34.4 percent of GDP in 2023 . This dataset provides - United States Government Spending To Gdp- actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data was reported at 30.600 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 30.100 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data is updated yearly, averaging 30.100 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 30.600 % in 2016 and a record low of 25.300 % in 1979. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 10% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles.; ; 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. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 46.900 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 46.400 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 46.000 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 46.900 % in 2016 and a record low of 41.200 % in 1979. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; 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. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Techsalerator’s Import/Export Trade Data for North America

Techsalerator’s Import/Export Trade Data for North America delivers an exhaustive and nuanced analysis of trade activities across the North American continent. This extensive dataset provides detailed insights into import and export transactions involving companies across various sectors within North America.

Coverage Across All North American Countries

The dataset encompasses all key countries within North America, including:

1. United States

The dataset provides detailed trade information for the United States, the largest economy in the region. It includes extensive data on trade volumes, product categories, and the key trading partners of the U.S. 2. Canada

Data for Canada covers a wide range of trade activities, including import and export transactions, product classifications, and trade relationships with major global and regional partners. 3. Mexico

Comprehensive data for Mexico includes detailed records on its trade activities, including exports and imports, key sectors, and trade agreements affecting its trade dynamics. 4. Central American Countries:

Belize Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Panama The dataset covers these countries with information on their trade flows, key products, and trade relations with North American and international partners. 5. Caribbean Countries:

Bahamas Barbados Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Haiti Jamaica Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago Trade data for these Caribbean nations includes detailed transaction records, sector-specific trade information, and their interactions with North American trade partners. Comprehensive Data Features

Transaction Details: The dataset includes precise details on each trade transaction, such as product descriptions, quantities, values, and dates. This allows for an accurate understanding of trade flows and patterns across North America.

Company Information: It provides data on companies involved in trade, including names, locations, and industry sectors, enabling targeted business analysis and competitive intelligence.

Categorization: Transactions are categorized by industry sectors, product types, and trade partners, offering insights into market dynamics and sector-specific trends within North America.

Trade Trends: Historical data helps users analyze trends over time, identify emerging markets, and assess the impact of economic or political events on trade flows in the region.

Geographical Insights: The data offers insights into regional trade flows and cross-border dynamics between North American countries and their global trade partners, including significant international trade relationships.

Regulatory and Compliance Data: Information on trade regulations, tariffs, and compliance requirements is included, helping businesses navigate the complex regulatory environments within North America.

Applications and Benefits

Market Research: Companies can leverage the data to discover new market opportunities, analyze competitive landscapes, and understand demand for specific products across North American countries.

Strategic Planning: Insights from the data enable companies to refine trade strategies, optimize supply chains, and manage risks associated with international trade in North America.

Economic Analysis: Analysts and policymakers can monitor economic performance, evaluate trade balances, and make informed decisions on trade policies and economic development strategies.

Investment Decisions: Investors can assess trade trends and market potentials to make informed decisions about investments in North America's diverse economies.

Techsalerator’s Import/Export Trade Data for North America offers a vital resource for organizations involved in international trade, providing a thorough, reliable, and detailed view of trade activities across the continent.

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data release provides the descriptions of 10 U.S. sites that include mineral regions, mineral occurrences, and mine features that contain enrichments of graphite. To be included in this data release, sites must have a contained resource and (or) past production of more than 1,000 metric tons of graphite, which is approximately 3 percent of the average annual U.S. consumption of graphite from 2016 through 2020. Sites in this dataset occur in Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. There are known graphite occurrences in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wyoming that have not been included in this database because contained resource and (or) production of graphite were not found above our cutoff in the public domain for these areas. Graphite is considered a critical and strategic mineral because of its essential applications in the aerospace and energy sectors (Robinson and others, 2017). Graphite is used in batteries, brake linings, lubricants, powdered metals, refractory applications, and steelmaking (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). In 2020, the U.S. was 100 percent net import reliant on graphite from countries that included China, Mexico, Canada, and India (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). Graphite has not been produced in the U.S. since the 1950s. Graphite occurs in the U.S. as disseminated flake graphite deposits and as graphite veins. Globally, most currently mined flake graphite deposits contain at least 8 to 12 percent graphitic carbon in deposits larger than 0.5 million metric tons (Robinson and others, 2017). In comparison, the Graphite Creek deposit in Alaska contains a measured and indicated resource of more than 10 million metric tons with 7.8 percent graphite plus an inferred resource of more than 90 million metric tons with 8 percent graphite (King and others, 2019). Graphite One Inc. plans to decide whether to move the Graphite Creek deposit into production after an updated prefeasibility study is completed in early 2022. The entries and descriptions in the database were derived from published papers, reports, data, and internet documents representing a variety of sources, including geologic and exploration studies described in State, Federal, and industry reports. Resources extracted from older sources might not be compliant with current rules and guidelines in minerals industry standards such as National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101). The presence of a graphite mineral deposit in this database is not meant to imply that the deposit is currently economic. Rather, these deposits were included to capture the characteristics of the largest graphite deposits in the United States. Inclusion of material in the database is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The authors welcome additional published information in order to continually update and refine this dataset. King, N., Valorose, C., and Ellis, W., 2019, 2019 NI 43-101 mineral resource update for Graphite Creek, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, USA, prepared for Graphite One Inc. [Filing date March 26, 2019]: Alaska Earth Sciences, Inc., 258 p., accessed February 6, 2020, at http://www.sedar.com. Robinson, G.R., Jr., Hammarstrom, J.M., and Olson, D.W., 2017, Graphite, chap. J of Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C., eds., Critical mineral resources of the United States - Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, p. J1-J24, https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802J. U.S. Geological Survey, 2021, Mineral commodity summaries 2021: U.S. Geological Survey, 200 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2021.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median household incomes for various household sizes in State Center, IA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in median household income with the size of the family unit, offering valuable insights into economic trends and disparities within different household sizes, aiding in data analysis and decision-making.

Key observations

• Of the 7 household sizes (1 person to 7-or-more person households) reported by the census bureau, State Center did not include 6, or 7-person households. Across the different household sizes in State Center the mean income is $91,897, and the standard deviation is $38,035. The coefficient of variation (CV) is 41.39%. This high CV indicates high relative variability, suggesting that the incomes vary significantly across different sizes of households.
• In the most recent year, 2021, The smallest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income was 1-person households, with an income of $35,873. It then further increased to $107,551 for 5-person households, the largest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income.

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/state-center-ia-median-household-income-by-household-size.jpeg" alt="State Center, IA median household income, by household size (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)">

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Household Sizes:

• 1-person households
• 2-person households
• 3-person households
• 4-person households
• 5-person households
• 6-person households
• 7-or-more-person households

Variables / Data Columns

• Household Size: This column showcases 7 household sizes ranging from 1-person households to 7-or-more-person households (As mentioned above).
• Median Household Income: Median household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific household size.

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

Recommended for further research

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

State fact sheets provide information on population, income, education, employment, federal funds, organic agriculture, farm characteristics, farm financial indicators, top commodities, and exports, for each State in the United States. Links to county-level data are included when available.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: Query tool For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data release provides the descriptions of the only U.S. sites—including mineral regions, mineral occurrences, and mine features—that have reported production and (or) resources of gallium (Ga). The sites in this data release have contained resource and (or) past production of more than 16 metric tons Ga metal, which was the approximate average annual consumption of Ga in the U.S. from 2016 through 2020. This dataset contains the Round Top deposit in Texas and the Apex deposit in Utah. Gallium occurs in many different minerals and rocks where substitution takes place with elements of similar size, such as zinc, or similar charge, such as aluminum. Therefore, Ga is primarily recovered as a byproduct of processing aluminum or zinc ores (Foley and others, 2017). Some U.S. zinc deposits contain up to 50 parts per million Ga, but Ga is not currently recovered from U.S. mineral deposits. Gallium is necessary for strategic, consumer, and commercial applications. Gallium is used in thin-film photovoltaics, and is important as an application for clean energy technologies. In 2020, the U.S. was 100 percent net import reliant on Ga from countries such as China, United Kingdom, Germany, and others (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). The entries and descriptions in the database were derived from published papers, reports, data, and internet documents representing a variety of sources, including geologic and exploration studies described in State, Federal, and industry reports. Resources extracted from older sources might not be compliant with current rules and guidelines in minerals industry standards such as National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101). The presence of a Ga mineral deposit in this database is not meant to imply that the deposit is currently economic. Rather, these deposits were included to capture the characteristics of the largest Ga deposits in the United States. Inclusion of material in the database is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The authors welcome additional published information in order to continually update and refine this dataset. Foley, N.K., Jaskula, B.W., Kimball, B.E., and Schulte, R.F., 2017, Gallium, chap. H of Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C., eds., Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, p. H1–H35, https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802H. U.S. Geological Survey, 2021, Mineral commodity summaries 2021: U.S. Geological Survey, 200 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2021.

West Virginia and Kansas had the lowest cost of living across all U.S. states, with composite costs being half of those found in Hawaii. This was according to a composite index that compares prices for various goods and services on a state-by-state basis. In West Virginia, the cost of living index amounted to 84.8 - well below the national benchmark of 100. Nevada - which had an index value of 100.1 - was only slightly above that benchmark. Expensive places to live included Hawaii, Massachusetts, and California Housing costs in the U.S. Housing is usually the highest expense in a household’s budget. In 2023, the average house sold for approximately 427,000 U.S. dollars, but house prices in the Northeast and West regions were significantly higher. Conversely, the South had some of the least expensive housing. In West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the median price of the typical single-family home was less than 200,000 U.S. dollars. That makes living costs in these states significantly lower than in states such as Hawaii and California, where housing is much more expensive. What other expenses affect the cost of living? Utility costs such as electricity, natural gas, water, and internet also influence the cost of living. In Alaska, Hawaii, and Connecticut, the average monthly utility cost exceeded 500 U.S. dollars. That was because of the significantly higher prices for electricity and natural gas in these states.

This data collection contains detailed county and state-level ecological and descriptive data for the United States for the years 1790 to 2002. Parts 1-43 are an update to HISTORICAL, DEMOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL DATA: THE UNITED STATES, 1790-1970 (ICPSR 0003). Parts 1-41 contain data from the 1790-1970 censuses. They include extensive information about the social and political character of the United States, including a breakdown of population by state, race, nationality, number of families, size of the family, births, deaths, marriages, occupation, religion, and general economic condition. Parts 42 and 43 contain data from the 1840 and 1870 Censuses of Manufacturing, respectively. These files include information about the number of persons employed in various industries and the quantities of different types of manufactured products. Parts 44-50 provide county-level data from the United States Census of Agriculture for 1840 to 1900. They also include the state and national totals for the variables. The files provide data about the number, types, and prices of various agricultural products. Parts 51-57 contain data on religious bodies and church membership for 1906, 1916, 1926, 1936, and 1952, respectively. Parts 58-69 consist of data from the CITY DATA BOOKS for 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1994, and 2000, respectively. These files contain information about population, climate, housing units, hotels, birth and death rates, school enrollment and education expenditures, employment in various industries, and city government finances. Parts 70-81 consist of data from the COUNTY DATA BOOKS for 1947, 1949, 1952, 1956, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1994, and 2000, respectively. These files include information about population, employment, housing, agriculture, manufacturing, retail, services, trade, banking, Social Security, local governments, school enrollment, hospitals, crime, and income. Parts 82-84 contain data from USA COUNTIES 1998. Due to the large number of variables from this source, the data were divided into into three separate data files. Data include information on population, vital statistics, school enrollment, educational attainment, Social Security, labor force, personal income, poverty, housing, trade, farms, ancestry, commercial banks, and transfer payments. Parts 85-106 provide data from the United States Census of Agriculture for 1910 to 2002. They provide data about the amount, types, and prices of various agricultural products. Also, these datasets contain extensive information on the amount, expenses, sales, values, and production of farms and machinery. (Source: downloaded from ICPSR 7/13/10)

Please Note: This dataset is part of the historical CISER Data Archive Collection and is also available at ICPSR -- https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02896.v3. We highly recommend using the ICPSR version, as they made this dataset available in multiple data formats and updated the data through 2002.

Abstract

Estache and Goicoechea present an infrastructure database that was assembled from multiple sources. Its main purposes are: (i) to provide a snapshot of the sector as of the end of 2004; and (ii) to facilitate quantitative analytical research on infrastructure sectors. The related working paper includes definitions, source information and the data available for 37 performance indicators that proxy access, affordability and quality of service (most recent data as of June 2005). Additionally, the database includes a snapshot of 15 reform indicators across infrastructure sectors.

This is a first attempt, since the effort made in the World Development Report 1994, at generating a database on infrastructure sectors and it needs to be recognized as such. This database is not a state of the art output—this is being worked on by sector experts on a different time table. The effort has however generated a significant amount of new information. The database already provides enough information to launch a much more quantitative debate on the state of infrastructure. But much more is needed and by circulating this information at this stage, we hope to be able to generate feedback and fill the major knowledge gaps and inconsistencies we have identified.

Geographic coverage

The database covers the following countries: - Afghanistan - Albania - Algeria - American Samoa - Andorra - Angola - Antigua and Barbuda - Argentina - Armenia - Aruba - Australia - Austria - Azerbaijan - Bahamas, The - Bahrain - Bangladesh - Barbados - Belarus - Belgium - Belize - Benin - Bermuda - Bhutan - Bolivia - Bosnia and Herzegovina - Botswana - Brazil - Brunei - Bulgaria - Burkina Faso - Burundi - Cambodia - Cameroon - Canada - Cape Verde - Cayman Islands - Central African Republic - Chad - Channel Islands - Chile - China - Colombia - Comoros - Congo, Dem. Rep. - Congo, Rep. - Costa Rica - Cote d'Ivoire - Croatia - Cuba - Cyprus - Czech Republic - Denmark - Djibouti - Dominica - Dominican Republic - Ecuador - Egypt, Arab Rep. - El Salvador - Equatorial Guinea - Eritrea - Estonia - Ethiopia - Faeroe Islands - Fiji - Finland - France - French Polynesia - Gabon - Gambia, The - Georgia - Germany - Ghana - Greece - Greenland - Grenada - Guam - Guatemala - Guinea - Guinea-Bissau - Guyana - Haiti - Honduras - Hong Kong, China - Hungary - Iceland - India - Indonesia - Iran, Islamic Rep. - Iraq - Ireland - Isle of Man - Israel - Italy - Jamaica - Japan - Jordan - Kazakhstan - Kenya - Kiribati - Korea, Dem. Rep. - Korea, Rep. - Kuwait - Kyrgyz Republic - Lao PDR - Latvia - Lebanon - Lesotho - Liberia - Libya - Liechtenstein - Lithuania - Luxembourg - Macao, China - Macedonia, FYR - Madagascar - Malawi - Malaysia - Maldives - Mali - Malta - Marshall Islands - Mauritania - Mauritius - Mayotte - Mexico - Micronesia, Fed. Sts. - Moldova - Monaco - Mongolia - Morocco - Mozambique - Myanmar - Namibia - Nepal - Netherlands - Netherlands Antilles - New Caledonia - New Zealand - Nicaragua - Niger - Nigeria - Northern Mariana Islands - Norway - Oman - Pakistan - Palau - Panama - Papua New Guinea - Paraguay - Peru - Philippines - Poland - Portugal - Puerto Rico - Qatar - Romania - Russian Federation - Rwanda - Samoa - San Marino - Sao Tome and Principe - Saudi Arabia - Senegal - Seychelles - Sierra Leone - Singapore - Slovak Republic - Slovenia - Solomon Islands - Somalia - South Africa - Spain - Sri Lanka - St. Kitts and Nevis - St. Lucia - St. Vincent and the Grenadines - Sudan - Suriname - Swaziland - Sweden - Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic - Tajikistan - Tanzania - Thailand - Togo - Tonga - Trinidad and Tobago - Tunisia - Turkey - Turkmenistan - Uganda - Ukraine - United Arab Emirates - United Kingdom - United States - Uruguay - Uzbekistan - Vanuatu - Venezuela, RB - Vietnam - Virgin Islands (U.S.) - West Bank and Gaza - Yemen, Rep. - Yugoslavia, FR (Serbia/Montenegro) - Zambia - Zimbabwe

Kind of data

Aggregate data [agg]

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Response rate

Sector Performance Indicators

Energy The energy sector is relatively well covered by the database, at least in terms of providing a relatively recent snapshot for the main policy areas. The best covered area is access where data are available for 2000 for about 61% of the 207 countries included in the database. The technical quality indicator is available for 60% of the countries, and at least one of the perceived quality indicators is available for 40% of the countries. Price information is available for about 41% of the countries, distinguishing between residential and non residential.

Water & Sanitation Because the sector is part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), it enjoys a lot of effort on data generation in terms of the access rates. The WHO is the main engine behind this effort in collaboration with the multilateral and bilateral aid agencies. The coverage is actually quite high -some national, urban and rural information is available for 75 to 85% of the countries- but there are significant concerns among the research community about the fact that access rates have been measured without much consideration to the quality of access level. The data on technical quality are only available for 27% of the countries. There are data on perceived quality for roughly 39% of the countries but it cannot be used to qualify the information provided by the raw access rates (i.e. access 3 hours a day is not equivalent to access 24 hours a day).

Information and Communication Technology The ICT sector is probably the best covered among the infrastructure sub-sectors to a large extent thanks to the fact that the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has taken on the responsibility to collect the data. ITU covers a wide spectrum of activity under the communications heading and its coverage ranges from 85 to 99% for all national access indicators. The information on prices needed to make assessments of affordability is also quite extensive since it covers roughly 85 to 95% of the 207 countries. With respect to quality, the coverage of technical indicators is over 88% while the information on perceived quality is only available for roughly 40% of the countries.

Transport The transport sector is possibly the least well covered in terms of the service orientation of infrastructure indicators. Regarding access, network density is the closest approximation to access to the service and is covered at a rate close to 90% for roads but only at a rate of 50% for rail. The relevant data on prices only cover about 30% of the sample for railways. Some type of technical quality information is available for 86% of the countries. Quality perception is only available for about 40% of the countries.

Institutional Reform Indicators

Electricity The data on electricity policy reform were collected from the following sources: ABS Electricity Deregulation Report (2004), AEI-Brookings telecommunications and electricity regulation database (2003), Bacon (1999), Estache and Gassner (2004), Estache, Trujillo, and Tovar de la Fe (2004), Global Regulatory Network Program (2004), Henisz et al. (2003), International Porwer Finance Review (2003-04), International Power and Utilities Finance Review (2004-05), Kikukawa (2004), Wallsten et al. (2004), World Bank Caribbean Infrastructure Assessment (2004), World Bank Global Energy Sector Reform in Developing Countries (1999), World Bank staff, and country regulators. The coverage for the three types of institutional indicators is quite good for the electricity sector. For regulatory institutions and private participation in generation and distribution, the coverage is about 80% of the 207 counties. It is somewhat lower on the market structure with only 58%.

Water & Sanitation The data on water policy reform were collected from the following sources: ABS Water and Waste Utilities of the World (2004), Asian Developing Bank (2000), Bayliss (2002), Benoit (2004), Budds and McGranahan (2003), Hall, Bayliss, and Lobina (2002), Hall and Lobina (2002), Hall, Lobina, and De La Mote (2002), Halpern (2002), Lobina (2001), World Bank Caribbean Infrastructure Assessment (2004), World Bank Sector Note on Water Supply and Sanitation for Infrastructure in EAP (2004), and World Bank staff. The coverage for institutional reforms in W&S is not as exhaustive as for the other utilities. Information on the regulatory institutions responsible for large utilities is available for about 67% of the countries. Ownership data are available for about 70% of the countries. There is no information on the market structure good enough to be reported here at this stage. In most countries small scale operators are important private actors but there is no systematic record of their existence. Most of the information available on their role and importance is only anecdotal.

Information and Communication Technology The report Trends in Telecommunications Reform from ITU (revised by World Bank staff) is the main source of information for this sector. The information on institutional reforms in the sector is however not as exhaustive as it is for its sector performance indicators. While the coverage on the regulatory institutions is 100%, it varies between 76 and 90% of the countries for more of the other indicators. Quite surprisingly also, in contrast to what is available for other sectors, it proved difficult to obtain data on the timing of reforms and of the creation of the regulatory agencies.

Transport Information on transport institutions and reforms is not systematically generated by any agency. Even though more data are needed to have a more comprenhensive picture of the transport sector, it was possible to collect data on railways policy reform from Janes World Railways (2003-04) and complement it with

This dataset is a polygon shapefile representing the most recent update of the coal fields of the conterminous United States. Scale of data is 1:5,000,000. This publication is based on a USGS paper map that was a representation of the coal fields and major regions of the time (Trumbull, 1960). Trumbull's 1960 map was digitized and coal fields from the Gulf Coast were added to create USGS OFR 96-92, Coal Fields of the Conterminous United States (Tully, 1996). Tully's (1996) publication consisted of a map in pdf format that could be printed, and an ArcInfo coverage of the coal fields, attributed with rank and potential economic use (minability) of the coal. This new dataset includes a pdf showing updated coal fields and a shapefile that contains attributes on coal rank (without regard to outdated economic standards), province, name, and age. The data used to update Tully's (1996) digital map was collected from the National Coal Resource Assessment (NCRA) regional Professional Papers produced by the USGS and from AAPG Discovery Series 14/Studies in Geology 62, all of which were conducted by USGS geologists and professional staff. A small number of field names were added and or updated in the western states of Washington, Oregon, California, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico using additional coal resource literature.The full study is available from USGS: https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20121205

Abstract

Financial inclusion is critical in reducing poverty and achieving inclusive economic growth. When people can participate in the financial system, they are better able to start and expand businesses, invest in their children’s education, and absorb financial shocks. Yet prior to 2011, little was known about the extent of financial inclusion and the degree to which such groups as the poor, women, and rural residents were excluded from formal financial systems.

By collecting detailed indicators about how adults around the world manage their day-to-day finances, the Global Findex allows policy makers, researchers, businesses, and development practitioners to track how the use of financial services has changed over time. The database can also be used to identify gaps in access to the formal financial system and design policies to expand financial inclusion.

Geographic coverage

National Coverage

Analysis unit

Individual

Universe

The target population is the civilian, non-institutionalized population 15 years and above.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Frequency of data collection

Triennial

Sampling procedure

As in the first edition, the indicators in the 2014 Global Findex are drawn from survey data covering almost 150,000 people in more than 140 economies-representing more than 97 percent of the world's population. The survey was carried out over the 2014 calendar year by Gallup, Inc. as part of its Gallup World Poll, which since 2005 has continually conducted surveys of approximately 1,000 people in each of more than 160 economies and in over 140 languages, using randomly selected, nationally representative samples. The target population is the entire civilian, noninstitutionalized population age 15 and above. The set of indicators will be collected again in 2017.

Surveys are conducted face to face in economies where telephone coverage represents less than 80 percent of the population or is the customary methodology. In most economies the fieldwork is completed in two to four weeks. In economies where face-to-face surveys are conducted, the first stage of sampling is the identification of primary sampling units. These units are stratified by population size, geography, or both, and clustering is achieved through one or more stages of sampling. Where population information is available, sample selection is based on probabilities proportional to population size; otherwise, simple random sampling is used. Random route procedures are used to select sampled households. Unless an outright refusal occurs, interviewers make up to three attempts to survey the sampled household. To increase the probability of contact and completion, attempts are made at different times of the day and, where possible, on different days. If an interview cannot be obtained at the initial sampled household, a simple substitution method is used. Respondents are randomly selected within the selected households by means of the Kish grid. In economies where cultural restrictions dictate gender matching, respondents are randomly selected through the Kish grid from among all eligible adults of the interviewer's gender.

In economies where telephone interviewing is employed, random digit dialing or a nationally representative list of phone numbers is used. In most economies where cell phone penetration is high, a dual sampling frame is used. Random selection of respondents is achieved by using either the latest birthday or Kish grid method. At least three attempts are made to reach a person in each household, spread over different days and times of day.

The sample size in United States was 1,021 individuals.

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

Research instrument

The questionnaire was designed by the World Bank, in conjunction with a Technical Advisory Board composed of leading academics, practitioners, and policy makers in the field of financial inclusion. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gallup Inc. also provided valuable input. The questionnaire was piloted in multiple countries, using focus groups, cognitive interviews, and field testing. The questionnaire is available in 142 languages upon request.

Questions on cash withdrawals, saving using an informal savings club or person outside the family, domestic remittances, school fees, and agricultural payments are only asked in developing economies and few other selected countries. The question on mobile money accounts was only asked in economies that were part of the Mobile Money for the Unbanked (MMU) database of the GSMA at the time the interviews were being held.

Sampling error estimates

Estimates of standard errors (which account for sampling error) vary by country and indicator. For country-specific margins of error, please refer to the Methodology section and corresponding table in Asli Demirguc-Kunt, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, and Peter Van Oudheusden, “The Global Findex Database 2014: Measuring Financial Inclusion around the World.” Policy Research Working Paper 7255, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

This dataset presents statistics for Mining: Location of Mines by Employment Size for Subsectors and Industries for the U.S., States, and Offshore Areas.

analyze the current population survey (cps) annual social and economic supplement (asec) with r the annual march cps-asec has been supplying the statistics for the census bureau's report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage since 1948. wow. the us census bureau and the bureau of labor statistics ( bls) tag-team on this one. until the american community survey (acs) hit the scene in the early aughts (2000s), the current population survey had the largest sample size of all the annual general demographic data sets outside of the decennial census - about two hundred thousand respondents. this provides enough sample to conduct state- and a few large metro area-level analyses. your sample size will vanish if you start investigating subgroups b y state - consider pooling multiple years. county-level is a no-no. despite the american community survey's larger size, the cps-asec contains many more variables related to employment, sources of income, and insurance - and can be trended back to harry truman's presidency. aside from questions specifically asked about an annual experience (like income), many of the questions in this march data set should be t reated as point-in-time statistics. cps-asec generalizes to the united states non-institutional, non-active duty military population. the national bureau of economic research (nber) provides sas, spss, and stata importation scripts to create a rectangular file (rectangular data means only person-level records; household- and family-level information gets attached to each person). to import these files into r, the parse.SAScii function uses nber's sas code to determine how to import the fixed-width file, then RSQLite to put everything into a schnazzy database. you can try reading through the nber march 2012 sas importation code yourself, but it's a bit of a proc freak show. this new github repository contains three scripts: 2005-2012 asec - download all microdata.R down load the fixed-width file containing household, family, and person records import by separating this file into three tables, then merge 'em together at the person-level download the fixed-width file containing the person-level replicate weights merge the rectangular person-level file with the replicate weights, then store it in a sql database create a new variable - one - in the data table 2012 asec - analysis examples.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' progr am create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights perform a boatload of analysis examples replicate census estimates - 2011.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' program create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights match the sas output shown in the png file below 2011 asec replicate weight sas output.png statistic and standard error generated from the replicate-weighted example sas script contained in this census-provided person replicate weights usage instructions document. click here to view these three scripts for more detail about the current population survey - annual social and economic supplement (cps-asec), visit: the census bureau's current population survey page the bureau of labor statistics' current population survey page the current population survey's wikipedia article notes: interviews are conducted in march about experiences during the previous year. the file labeled 2012 includes information (income, work experience, health insurance) pertaining to 2011. when you use the current populat ion survey to talk about america, subract a year from the data file name. as of the 2010 file (the interview focusing on america during 2009), the cps-asec contains exciting new medical out-of-pocket spending variables most useful for supplemental (medical spending-adjusted) poverty research. confidential to sas, spss, stata, sudaan users: why are you still rubbing two sticks together after we've invented the butane lighter? time to transition to r. :D

View data of the S&P 500, an index of the stocks of 500 leading companies in the US economy, which provides a gauge of the U.S. equity market.