Serbia RS: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 12.400 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 14.600 % for 2020. Serbia RS: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 18.700 % from Dec 2012 (Median) to 2021, with 10 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 21.600 % in 2014 and a record low of 12.400 % in 2021. Serbia RS: 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 Serbia – Table RS.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).

Sweden SE: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 11.100 % in 2021. This records an increase from the previous number of 10.100 % for 2020. Sweden SE: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 8.900 % from Dec 1975 (Median) to 2021, with 27 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.100 % in 2021 and a record low of 5.200 % in 1987. Sweden SE: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Sweden – Table SE.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

Abstract

Survey based Harmonized Indicators (SHIP) files are harmonized data files from household surveys that are conducted by countries in Africa. To ensure the quality and transparency of the data, it is critical to document the procedures of compiling consumption aggregation and other indicators so that the results can be duplicated with ease. This process enables consistency and continuity that make temporal and cross-country comparisons consistent and more reliable.

Four harmonized data files are prepared for each survey to generate a set of harmonized variables that have the same variable names. Invariably, in each survey, questions are asked in a slightly different way, which poses challenges on consistent definition of harmonized variables. The harmonized household survey data present the best available variables with harmonized definitions, but not identical variables. The four harmonized data files are

a) Individual level file (Labor force indicators in a separate file): This file has information on basic characteristics of individuals such as age and sex, literacy, education, health, anthropometry and child survival. b) Labor force file: This file has information on labor force including employment/unemployment, earnings, sectors of employment, etc. c) Household level file: This file has information on household expenditure, household head characteristics (age and sex, level of education, employment), housing amenities, assets, and access to infrastructure and services. d) Household Expenditure file: This file has consumption/expenditure aggregates by consumption groups according to Purpose (COICOP) of Household Consumption of the UN.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Individual level for datasets with suffix _I and _L
• Household level for datasets with suffix _H and _E

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample Design The 1999/2000 Household Income, Consurnption, and Expendi.ture Survey covered both the urban and the sedentary rural parts of the country. The survey has not covered six zones in Somalia Region and two zones in Afar Region that are inhabited mainly by nomadic population. For the purpose of the survey, the country was divided into three categories . That is, the rural parts of the country and the urban areas that were divided into two broad categories taking into account sizes of their population. Category I: Rural parts of nine Regional States and two administrative regions were grouped in this category each of which were the survey dornains (reporting levels). These regions are Tigrai,Afar, Amhara, Oromia, Sornalia, Eenishangul-Gunuz, SNNP,Gambela, Flarari, Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa.

Category II: All Regional capitals and five major urban centers of the country were grouped in this category. Each of the urban centers in this category was the survey domain (reporting level) for which separate survey results for rnajor survey characteristics were reported.

Category III: Urban centers in the country other than the urban centers in category II were grouped in this category and formed a single reporting level. Other than the reporting levels defined in category II and category III one additional domain, namely total urban (country level) can be constructed by eombining the basic domains defined in the two categories. All in all 35'basie rural and urban domains (reporting levels) were defined for the survey. In addition to the above urban and rural domains, survey results are to be reported at regional and eountry levels by aggregating the survey results for the conesponding urban and rural areas. Definition of the survey dornains was based on both technical and resource considerations. More specifically, sample size for the domains were determined to enable provision of major indicators with reasonable precision subject to the resources that were available for the survey.

Selection Scheme and Sample Size in Each Category CategoryI : A stratified two-stage sample design was used to select the sample in which the primary sampling units (PSUs) were EAs. Sample enumeration areas( EAs) from each domain were selected using systematic sampling that is probability proportional to the size being number of households obtained from the 1994 population and housing census.A total of 722 EAs were selected from the rural parts of the country. Within each sample EA a fresh list of households was prepared at the beginning of the survey's field work and for the administration of the survey questionnaire 12 households per sample EA for rural areas were systematically selected.

Category II: In this category also,a stratified two-stage sample design was used to select the sample. Here a strata constitutes all the "Regional State Capitals" and the five "Major Urban Centers" in the country and are grouped as a strata in this category. The primary sampling units (PSUs) are the EA's in the Regional State Capitals and the five Major Urban Centers and excludes the special EAs (non-conventional households). Sample enumeration areas( EAs) from each strata were selected using systematic sampling probability proportional to size, size being number of households obtained from the 1994 population and housing census. A total of 373 EAs were selected from this domain of study. Within each sample EAs a fresh list of households was prepared at the beginning of the survey's field work and for the administration of the questionnaire 16 household per sample EA were systematically selected-

Category III: Three-stage stratified sample design was adopted to select the sample from domains in category III. The PSUs were other urban centers selected using systematic sampling that is probability proportional to size; size being number of households obtained from the 1994 population and housing census. The secondary sampling units (SSUs) were EAs which were selected using systematic sampling that is probability proportional to size; size being number of households obtained from the 1994 population and housing census. A total of 169 sample EAs were selected from the sample of other urban centers and was determined by proportional allocation to their size of households from the 1994 census. Ultimately, 16 households within each of the sample EAs were selected systematically from a fresh list of households prepared at the beginning of the survey's fieldwork for the administration of the survey questionnaire.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The Household Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey questionnaire contains the following forms: - Form 1: Area Identification and Household Characteristics - Form 2A: Quantity and value of weekly consumption of food and drinks consumed at home and tobacco/including quantity purchased, own produced, obtained, etc for first and second week. - Form 2B: Quantity and value of weekly consumption of food and drinks consumed at home and tobacco/including quantity purchased, own produced, obtained, etc for third and fourth week . - Form 3A: All transaction (income, expenditure and consumption) for the first and second weeks except what is collected in Forms 2A and 2B - Form 3B: All transaction (income, expenditure and consumption) for the third and fourth weeks except what is collected in Forms 2A and 2B - Form 4: All transaction (expenditure and consumption) for last 6 months for Household expenditure on some selected item groups - Form 5: Cash income and receipts received by household and type of tenure. The survey questionnaire is provided as external resource.

Iran IR: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 12.500 % in 2022. This records a decrease from the previous number of 13.200 % for 2021. Iran IR: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 12.700 % from Dec 1986 (Median) to 2022, with 19 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 20.600 % in 1986 and a record low of 10.500 % in 2013. Iran IR: 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 Iran – Table IR.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).

Dominican Republic DO: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 14.300 % in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 12.900 % for 2021. Dominican Republic DO: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 18.900 % from Dec 1986 (Median) to 2022, with 28 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 22.900 % in 1986 and a record low of 12.900 % in 2021. Dominican Republic DO: 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 Dominican Republic – Table DO.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

The 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.

India Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 9.800 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 10.000 % for 2020. India Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 6.200 % from Dec 1977 (Median) to 2021, with 14 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 10.300 % in 2019 and a record low of 5.100 % in 2004. India 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 India – Table IN.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

Abstract

The Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS) is a collaborative project between the Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) and the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team. The objective of the LSMS-ISA is to collect multi-topic, household-level panel data with a special focus on improving agriculture statistics and generating a clearer understanding of the link between agriculture and other sectors of the economy. The project also aims to build capacity, share knowledge across countries, and improve survey methodologies and technology.

ESS is a long-term project to collect panel data. The project responds to the data needs of the country, given the dependence of a high percentage of households in agriculture activities in the country. The ESS collects information on household agricultural activities along with other information on the households like human capital, other economic activities, access to services and resources. The ability to follow the same households over time makes the ESS a new and powerful tool for studying and understanding the role of agriculture in household welfare over time as it allows analyses of how households add to their human and physical capital, how education affects earnings, and the role of government policies and programs on poverty, inter alia. The ESS is the first panel survey to be carried out by the CSA that links a multi-topic household questionnaire with detailed data on agriculture.

Geographic coverage

National Regional Urban and Rural

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Community

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame for the new ESS4 is based on the updated 2018 pre-census cartographic database of enumeration areas by CSA. The ESS4 sample is a two-stage stratified probability sample. The ESS4 EAs in rural areas are the subsample of the AgSS EA sample. That means, the first stage of sampling in the rural areas entailed selecting enumeration areas (i.e. the primary sampling units) using simple random sampling (SRS) from the sample of the 2018 AgSS enumeration areas (EAs). The first stage of sampling for urban areas is selecting EAs directly from the urban frame of EAs within each region using systematically with PPS. This is designed in way that automatically results in a proportional allocation of the urban sample by zone within each region. Following the selection of sample EAs, they are allocated by urban rural strata using power allocation which is happened to be closer to proportional allocation.

The second stage of sampling for the ESS4 is the selection of households to be surveyed in each sampled EA using systematic random sampling. From the rural EAs, 10 agricultural households are selected as a subsample of the households selected for the AgSS and 2 non-agricultural households are selected from the non-agriculture households list in that specific EA. The non-agriculture household selection follows the same sampling method i.e. systematic random sampling. One important issue to note in ESS4 sampling is that the total number of agriculture households per EA remains 10 even though there are less than 2 or no non-agriculture households are listed and sampled in that EA.

For urban areas, a total of 15 households are selected per EA regardless of the households’ economic activity. The households are selected using systematic random sampling from the total households listed in that specific EA. Table 3.2 presents the distribution of sample households for ESS4 by region, urban and rural stratum. A total of 7527 households are sampled for ESS4 based on the above sampling strategy.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The survey consisted of five questionnaires, similar with the questionnaires used during the previous rounds with revisions based on the results of the previous rounds as well as on identified areas of need for new data.

The household questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample; multiple modules in the household questionnaire were administered per eligible household members in the sample.

The community questionnaire was administered to a group of community members to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

The three agriculture questionnaires consisting of a post-planting agriculture questionnaire, post-harvest agriculture questionnaire and livestock questionnaire were administered to all household members (agriculture holders) who are engaged in agriculture activities. A holder is a person who exercises management control over the operations of the agricultural holdings and makes the major decisions regarding the utilization of the available resources. S/he has technical and economic responsibility for the holding. S/he may operate the holding directly as an owner or as a manager. Hence it is possible to have more than one holder in single sampled households. As a result we have administered more than one agriculture questionnaire in a single sampled household if the household has more than one holder.

Household questionnaire: The household questionnaire provides information on education; health (including anthropometric measurement for children); labor and time use; financial inclusion; assets ownership and user right; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm activities and entrepreneurship; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; physical and financial assets; credit; tax and transfer; and other sources of household income. Household location is geo-referenced in order to be able to later link the ESS data to other available geographic data sets (See Appendix 1 for discussion of the geo-data provided with the ESS).

Community questionnaire: The community questionnaire solicits information on infrastructure; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions and achievements; and local retail price information.

Agriculture questionnaire: The post-planting and post-harvest agriculture questionnaires focus on crop farming activities and solicit information on land ownership and use; land use and agriculture income tax; farm labor; inputs use; GPS land area measurement and coordinates of household fields; agriculture capital; irrigation; and crop harvest and utilization. The livestock questionnaire collects information on animal holdings and costs; and production, cost and sales of livestock by products.

Cleaning operations

Final data cleaning was carried out on all data files. Only errors that could be clearly and confidently fixed by the team were corrected; errors that had no clear fix were left in the datasets. Cleaning methods for these errors are left up to the data user.

Response rate

ESS4 planned to interview 7,527 households from 565 enumeration areas (EAs) (Rural 316 EAs and Urban 249 EAs). A total of 6770 households from 535 EAs were interviewed for both the agriculture and household modules. The household module was not implemented in 30 EAs due to security reasons (See the Basic Information Document for additional information on survey implementation).

Estonia EE: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 8.700 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 9.200 % for 2020. Estonia EE: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 10.600 % from Dec 2003 (Median) to 2021, with 19 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13.500 % in 2003 and a record low of 8.700 % in 2021. Estonia EE: 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 Estonia – Table EE.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

Abstract

The National Sustainable Development Plan (NSDP) Baseline Survey 2019 is an expanded Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) and is inclusive of health educational, cultural, and productive dimensions previously uncollected or in need of updating. The results of this survey will inform directly more than 30 key indicators listed in the NSDP M&E (Monitoring and Evaluation) Framework, as well as more than 40 of the listed indicators for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The NSDP Baseline Survey presents an opportunity as well for Vanuatu to establish a comprehensive Melanesian Wellbeing baseline as well as an updated baseline for the calculation of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and revising National Accounts.

Geographic coverage

National coverage. Below are the details of this national coverage: 1. National (Vanuatu); 2. Provinces (Torba, Sanma, Penama, Malampa, Shefa, Tafea); 4. Area Councils (Torres Area council right to Futuna & Aneityum Area Council); 5. Villages / Towns; 6. Urban/Rural.

Analysis unit

Household and Individual.

Universe

All de jure residents.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample size for this survey was determined using the previous 2010 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) outputs, and especially the per capita monthly total expenditure. From the 2010 HIES the mean, standard deviation and standard error were computed (per capita expenditure) and from the 2016 Census the distribution of the population across the 6 provinces of Vanuatu was used as a base. According to the accuracy of this variable of interest within each province the sample size per province were adjusted in order to get an expected sampling error around 5% within each province. The sampling frame used is the last 2016 Vanuatu census for the computation of the probability of selection of the Enumeration Areas (EAs) and the random selection method started with the random selection of EAs using the probability proportional to size. Then within each selected EAs 10 households were randomly selected using the sampling uniformed method. Within each selected EA the household listing were updated by the team before random selection and interview.

i) The only variable considered is per capita total household expenditure (variable of interest), as in addition to being one of the main indicators derived from the Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES), it is likely highly correlated with many other variables of interest (e.g. poverty). From the 2010 HIES dataset, using this variable of interest, a list of relevant indicators were calculated, those indicators provide information on: - (a)the status of the household expenditure distribution within each province, - (b) The efficiency provided by the 2010 HIES sample design - (c) The accuracy of the estimates calculated from the 2010 HIES dataset (especially the per capita household expenditure, our variable or interest)

ii) The original dataset has been trimmed using the variable of interest, the lowest and the highest percentiles (the 1% households with the lowest and highest per capita total household expenditure) were removed from the analysis (outliers). The dataset ends up with 4,289 households (given 4,377 households were completed).

iii) The 2010 Vanuatu HIES sample was based on a stratified multi stages selection - Stratification: geographical provinces (by urban / rural locations) - First stage of selection: Enumerations Areas (EAs) with probability of selection proportional to size - Second stage: households, with uniform probability of selection within the EAs

iv) The mean and standard deviation indicate the status of the variable of interest within each strata. The intracluster correlation (p), and the design effect (DEFF) highlight the efficiency of the sampling strategy, and the standard error/relative standard error (SE/RSE) of the variable of interest show its accuracy.

v) The purpose of this analysis is to get some insights from the 2010 HIES sample design in order to improve the 2019 survey. There is no point to improve the sample size in strata where the sample is not efficient (the gain in accuracy will be minor compared to the related cost).

vi) The challenge in the 2019 Vanuatu baseline survey: - Meet precision targets in each strata (provincial level) including Penama where Ambae island has been evacuated at the time of the sample design. - Acceptable sample size (due to budget constraints) - Following international recommendations (12 months of field operation) - Enhance the monitoring and supervision of the field staff and simplify management of the logistics in the field

==> Optimize the variance/cost ratio of the survey design vii) Table 1 from the Document Sample Design (provided as External Resources) presents the Vanuatu 2010 HIES survey specifications, efficiency and accuracy in each strata (for the variable of interest). It shows that some improvements can be done in Torba, and Shefa rural (where the RSE is higher than 5%), and it shows a high intraclass correlation in Malampa, Shefa rural and Tafea (that lead to a high design effect in those strata). In Torba, the high design effect comes from the high number of households interviewed in each selected EA (on average 33 households per selected EA in this strata were interviewed). - Torba: the sample size is good, there is just a need to reduce the number of households to interview within each strata (and in order to keep a similar sample size the number of EAs to select in the province will be increased) - Malampa: given the high intracluster correlation in this province, a higher number of EAs to select is required (with the same number of households per EA to interview). - Shefa rural: keep the same number of households to interview within each EA, and increase the number of EA to select (this will lead to a higher sample size) - Tafea: similar to Malampa province, the high intraclass correlation indicates that the number of EAs to select has to be increased (therefore the sample size as well). The sample size has to be increased in Malampa, Shefa rural and Tafea, for the rest, the 2019 design will have to be similar as 2010 (in order to provide at least the same level of accuracy). viii) The 2019 Vanuatu base line survey follows the international recommendations in terms of data collection schedule (12-month coverage) and considers a better management and supervision of the field staff. In this context, the field staff will work by team, given that: - A team is made of 1 supervisor (team leader) and 2 or 3 interviewers - Each interviewer will be responsible for 5 interview per round - A round of survey is a 1 week period - 1 EA is covered during 1 round, after the round completion, the team moves to the next EA for the next round. - A team complete 32 rounds during the 12 month field operation period (roughly every 2 rounds/2 weeks) of work is followed by 1 round/1 week of rest). ix) Table 3 from the Document Sample Design (provided as External Resources) presents a survey schedule starting February 2019 and ending February 2020. During this period of 32 working weeks (corresponding to 32 different selected EAs) the teams will be on the field (a 3 weeks period of rest during Christmas period).

x) The number of interviewer by team and number of team by province will determine the total sample size within each province. A team made of 3 interviewers can achieve 480 households over the period, while a team of 2 interviewers can achieve only 320 cases.

xi) The intraclass correlation is used to calculate the precision loss due to clustering. Like the standard deviation, the intracluster correlation is considered to be a true population parameter, and therefore transferable between designs. We have to accept the hypothesis that this correlation factor has not changed during the period 2010-2019, and therefore can be used to predict DEFF and RSE for the next survey given an adjusted design (based on the conclusions provided by the 2010 design). Table 2 from the Document Sample Design (provided as External Resources) predicts the design effect and sampling error of the variable of interest given the new sample design that is based on: - the sample size within each strata - the number of teams within each strata - the number of interviewers per team In order to allow more flexibility in the sample size, it is preferable to set up some teams of 3 interviewers, that can achieve 480 households, which represent a good sample size for Torba and Sanma urban and some teams of 2 interviewers that will achieve 320 households each (2 teams will be required in other provinces).

xii) The proposed design in Table 2 from the Document Sample Design (provided as External Resources) shows a total sample size of 4,640 households and a higher level of accuracy of the estimate of the variable of interest in all the stratas. Only Shefa rural shows a RSE higher than 5%, which will be still acceptable. The high intraclass correlation in Shefa rural impacts the variance of the estimates and lead to an increase the sample size or a decrease of the number of households to interview per EA which is logistically and financially not recommended.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The questionnaire was developed in English using the World Bank software Survey Solutions. This questionnaire is divided into 18 modules that are detailed below.

-Introduction (geographic areas, list of household members) -Module 1: Demographic characteristics: ethnicity, marital status; -Module 2: Wellbeing: culture

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

Haiti HT: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 18.200 % in 2012. Haiti HT: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 18.200 % from Dec 2012 (Median) to 2012, with 1 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 18.200 % in 2012 and a record low of 18.200 % in 2012. Haiti HT: 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 Haiti – Table HT.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).

Albania Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 9.600 % in 2020. This records an increase from the previous number of 8.600 % for 2019. Albania Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 9.300 % from Dec 1996 (Median) to 2020, with 12 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 14.400 % in 2014 and a record low of 7.200 % in 2008. Albania 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 Albania – Table AL.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).

China Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 11.600 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 11.900 % for 2020. China Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 15.100 % from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2021, with 19 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 19.500 % in 2010 and a record low of 8.900 % in 1990. China 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 China – Table CN.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).

Laos LA: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 10.300 % in 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 9.700 % for 2012. Laos LA: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 7.400 % from Dec 1992 (Median) to 2018, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 10.300 % in 2018 and a record low of 6.500 % in 2002. Laos LA: 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 Laos – Table LA.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).

Chile CL: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 13.800 % in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 13.400 % for 2020. Chile CL: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 17.900 % from Dec 1987 (Median) to 2022, with 16 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 20.800 % in 1987 and a record low of 13.400 % in 2020. Chile CL: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Chile – Table CL.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

Uganda UG: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 13.500 % in 2019. This records an increase from the previous number of 13.100 % for 2016. Uganda UG: Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 13.400 % from Dec 1989 (Median) to 2019, with 10 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 20.500 % in 1989 and a record low of 11.700 % in 1996. Uganda UG: 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 Uganda – Table UG.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).