According to latest figures, the Chinese population decreased by 1.39 million to around 1.408 billion people in 2024. After decades of rapid growth, China arrived at the turning point of its demographic development in 2022, which was earlier than expected. The annual population decrease is estimated to remain at moderate levels until around 2030 but to accelerate thereafter. Population development in China China had for a long time been the country with the largest population worldwide, but according to UN estimates, it has been overtaken by India in 2023. As the population in India is still growing, the country is very likely to remain being home of the largest population on earth in the near future. Due to several mechanisms put into place by the Chinese government as well as changing circumstances in the working and social environment of the Chinese people, population growth has subsided over the past decades, displaying an annual population growth rate of -0.1 percent in 2024. Nevertheless, compared to the world population in total, China held a share of about 18 percent of the overall global population in 2022. China's aging population In terms of demographic developments, the birth control efforts of the Chinese government had considerable effects on the demographic pyramid in China. Upon closer examination of the age distribution, a clear trend of an aging population becomes visible. In order to curb the negative effects of an aging population, the Chinese government abolished the one-child policy in 2015, which had been in effect since 1979, and introduced a three-child policy in May 2021. However, many Chinese parents nowadays are reluctant to have a second or third child, as is the case in most of the developed countries in the world. The number of births in China varied in the years following the abolishment of the one-child policy, but did not increase considerably. Among the reasons most prominent for parents not having more children are the rising living costs and costs for child care, growing work pressure, a growing trend towards self-realization and individualism, and changing social behaviors.

Globally, about 25 percent of the population is under 15 years of age and 10 percent is over 65 years of age. Africa has the youngest population worldwide. In Sub-Saharan Africa, more than 40 percent of the population is below 15 years, and only three percent are above 65, indicating the low life expectancy in several of the countries. In Europe, on the other hand, a higher share of the population is above 65 years than the population under 15 years. Fertility rates The high share of children and youth in Africa is connected to the high fertility rates on the continent. For instance, South Sudan and Niger have the highest population growth rates globally. However, about 50 percent of the world’s population live in countries with low fertility, where women have less than 2.1 children. Some countries in Europe, like Latvia and Lithuania, have experienced a population decline of one percent, and in the Cook Islands, it is even above two percent. In Europe, the majority of the population was previously working-aged adults with few dependents, but this trend is expected to reverse soon, and it is predicted that by 2050, the older population will outnumber the young in many developed countries. Growing global population As of 2025, there are 8.1 billion people living on the planet, and this is expected to reach more than nine billion before 2040. Moreover, the global population is expected to reach 10 billions around 2060, before slowing and then even falling slightly by 2100. As the population growth rates indicate, a significant share of the population increase will happen in Africa.

Data Usage Notice

This version is not recommended for download. Please check the newest version.

We would like to inform you that the updated GlobPOP dataset (2021-2022) have been available in version 2.0. The GlobPOP dataset (2021-2022) in the current version is not recommended for your work. The GlobPOP dataset (1990-2020) in the current version is the same as version 1.0.

Thank you for your continued support of the GlobPOP.

If you encounter any issues, please contact us via email at lulingliu@mail.bnu.edu.cn.

Introduction

Continuously monitoring global population spatial dynamics is essential for implementing effective policies related to sustainable development, such as epidemiology, urban planning, and global inequality.

Here, we present GlobPOP, a new continuous global gridded population product with a high-precision spatial resolution of 30 arcseconds from 1990 to 2020. Our data-fusion framework is based on cluster analysis and statistical learning approaches, which intends to fuse the existing five products(Global Human Settlements Layer Population (GHS-POP), Global Rural Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP), Gridded Population of the World Version 4 (GPWv4), LandScan Population datasets and WorldPop datasets to a new continuous global gridded population (GlobPOP). The spatial validation results demonstrate that the GlobPOP dataset is highly accurate. To validate the temporal accuracy of GlobPOP at the country level, we have developed an interactive web application, accessible at https://globpop.shinyapps.io/GlobPOP/, where data users can explore the country-level population time-series curves of interest and compare them with census data.

With the availability of GlobPOP dataset in both population count and population density formats, researchers and policymakers can leverage our dataset to conduct time-series analysis of population and explore the spatial patterns of population development at various scales, ranging from national to city level.

Data description

The product is produced in 30 arc-seconds resolution(approximately 1km in equator) and is made available in GeoTIFF format. There are two population formats, one is the 'Count'(Population count per grid) and another is the 'Density'(Population count per square kilometer each grid)

Each GeoTIFF filename has 5 fields that are separated by an underscore "_". A filename extension follows these fields. The fields are described below with the example filename:

GlobPOP_Count_30arc_1990_I32

Field 1: GlobPOP(Global gridded population)
Field 2: Pixel unit is population "Count" or population "Density"
Field 3: Spatial resolution is 30 arc seconds
Field 4: Year "1990"
Field 5: Data type is I32(Int 32) or F32(Float32)

More information

Please refer to the paper for detailed information:

Liu, L., Cao, X., Li, S. et al. A 31-year (1990–2020) global gridded population dataset generated by cluster analysis and statistical learning. Sci Data 11, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-02913-0.

The fully reproducible codes are publicly available at GitHub: https://github.com/lulingliu/GlobPOP.

Whereas the population is expected to decrease somewhat until 2100 in Asia, Europe, and South America, it is predicted to grow significantly in Africa. While there were 1.5 billion inhabitants on the continent at the beginning of 2024, the number of inhabitants is expected to reach 3.8 billion by 2100. In total, the global population is expected to reach nearly 10.4 billion by 2100. Worldwide population In the United States, the total population is expected to steadily increase over the next couple of years. In 2024, Asia held over half of the global population and is expected to have the highest number of people living in urban areas in 2050. Asia is home to the two most populous countries, India and China, both with a population of over one billion people. However, the small country of Monaco had the highest population density worldwide in 2021. Effects of overpopulation Alongside the growing worldwide population, there are negative effects of overpopulation. The increasing population puts a higher pressure on existing resources and contributes to pollution. As the population grows, the demand for food grows, which requires more water, which in turn takes away from the freshwater available. Concurrently, food needs to be transported through different mechanisms, which contributes to air pollution. Not every resource is renewable, meaning the world is using up limited resources that will eventually run out. Furthermore, more species will become extinct which harms the ecosystem and food chain. Overpopulation was considered to be one of the most important environmental issues worldwide in 2020.

Global high-resolution, contemporary data on human population distributions are a prerequisite for the accurate measurement of the impacts of population growth, for monitoring changes, and for planning interventions. The WorldPop project aims to meet these needs through the provision of detailed and open access population distribution datasets built using transparent and peer-reviewed approaches. Full details on the methods and datasets used in constructing the data, along with open access publications, are provided on the WorldPop website. In brief, recent census-based population counts matched to their associated administrative units are disaggregated to ~100x100m grid cells through machine learning approaches that exploit the relationships between population densities and a range of geospatial covariate layers. The mapping approach is Random Forest-based dasymetric redistribution. This dataset contains breakdown of estimated population by age and gender groups. Currently only 2020 data are present. See explanation of constrained vs unconstrained datasets. Further WorldPop gridded datasets on population age structures, poverty, urban growth, and population dynamics are freely available on the WorldPop website. WorldPop represents a collaboration between researchers at the University of Southampton, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, and University of Louisville. The project is principally funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The total population in the United States was estimated at 341.2 million people in 2024, according to the latest census figures and projections from Trading Economics. This dataset provides - United States Population - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries

Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

• Filter cases by state here

• Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

• Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

• Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

• Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

• Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

• This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website.
• In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules.
• In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county"
• This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members.
• Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
• Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
• The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories -- from Large Central Metro to Non-Core -- according to population and other characteristics. More details about the classifications can be found here.

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

TrashVisualization.RR code that merges and analyzes all of the data. SizesOfObjects:Table of sizes of objects we compare in the VR. WPP2017_POP_F01_1_TOT:United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2017). World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, DVD Edition.Population:Cleaned population data from UN data set above taking only 2015.1260352_SupportingFile:Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, et al. Marine pollution. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science. 2015 Feb 13;347(6223):768–71.DetailedSummary-Earth (+1-2):Coastal Cleanup Day Data from 2016-2018 https://www.coastalcleanupdata.org/WCD:World Cleanup Day Data for 2018https://www.letsdoitworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/WCD_2018_Waste_Report_FINAL_26.01.2019.pdfAnything with the word "Key":A key used for merging country names between data sets.

Abstract

At the onset of the 2008-2009 global economic crisis, the Open Society Institute-Sofia and the World Bank partnered to implement Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS). The CMS is a multi-topic household survey that followed three nationally representative cross-sections of about 2,400 households, including a panel of about 1,700 Bulgarian households, during February 2010, October 2010 and February 2011. The survey included a detailed income module, but no consumption module. It tracked the incidence of income shocks, the coping strategies used by affected households to mitigate the income losses, and the impact of public polices - social protection in particular - in alleviating the effects of the crisis. In particular, the survey investigated in some depth how households used the labor market to mitigate the impact of the crisis, whether formal social protection programs protected households against sliding into poverty, and the effectiveness of informal safety nets.

Given the special need to study the more vulnerable ethnic minority Roma population, an independent "booster sample" of about 300 households was selected in settlements and neighborhoods identified as predominantly Roma.

The first round of Crisis Monitoring Survey was conducted in February 2010. The data from this round is documented here.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• households,
• individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Two samples were used in Crisis Monitoring Survey: main sample and booster sample.

The main sample was created in two stages.

First, the population was stratified by district (NUTS 3) and type of settlement. In Bulgaria, there are 28 administrative districts. For the type of settlement three categories were defined - rural, urban (with population under 50,000) and metropolitan (with population over 50,000). Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, is include in the metropolitan category. In this way 28 x 3=84 categories (strata) were defined and proportional allocation was made. The method of selecting settlements from each stratum is simple random sampling with replacement, weighted by the number of households in the settlement.

In the second stage, voting stations were chosen in each settlement. Voting stations were used as a type of cluster. Voting stations were selected with probability proportional to the number of voters in each station. In each cluster, (voting station), 20 household addresses were randomly selected from the list of all addresses in the station. The first 10 addresses, which had to be visited mandatorily, formed the main list. If there was a refusal in a household of the main list, this household had to be replaced with an address from the list of reserves (the last 10 addresses).

For the Roma booster sample, an expert database was used. It contained basic information for all segregated neighborhoods in the country like locality (district, municipality and settlement), an experts' approximation for the number of population, number of households, number of houses and other characteristics. The planned booster size sample was 300 households. Simple random sampling without replacement was used in segregated neighborhoods, weighted by their population. In this way, 30 segregated neighborhoods in 20 districts were selected. In each district, 10 randomly sampled households had to be interviewed. GPS sampling was used to identify households in each cluster.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The survey collected information about household demographics (roster), labor market participation and earnings, housing, durables, access to and receipts of social protection programs, informal safety nets and remittances, other income, credit, self-reported impact of the crisis, coping and mitigation mechanisms.

The Bulgaria Crisis Monitoring Survey combines modules that have been used in crisis surveys in a number of countries (including crisis-specific labor, credit, and coping strategies modules) with uniquely detailed modules on income and social assistance.

Response rate

The planned size of the main sample in the first round was 2,400 households, 2,384 households were interviewed. The planned size of the Roma booster sample was 300 households, 296 households were interviewed.

For each cluster, there was a list of 10 addresses that had to be visited by the interviewer and an additional 10 addresses in reserve. If any of the first 10 addresses did not exist, dwellings were locked for a long time or the people refused to be interviewed, the additional ones were used. According to instructions, the interviewer had to visit each address in the main list three times, unless the building (or apartment) was obviously uninhabited. The interviewer had to write down what happened at each visit to each address on the list. At addresses where the interview did not take place, the interviewer noted the reason. Once an interview was done, the questionnaire got an ID that showed whether the address was on the original list or not.

Based on a comparison of coronavirus deaths in 210 countries relative to their population, Peru had the most losses to COVID-19 up until July 13, 2022. As of the same date, the virus had infected over 557.8 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had totaled more than 6.3 million. Note, however, that COVID-19 test rates can vary per country. Additionally, big differences show up between countries when combining the number of deaths against confirmed COVID-19 cases. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

The difficulties of death figures

This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. On April 16, for example, the Chinese city of Wuhan added a 50 percent increase in their death figures to account for community deaths. These deaths occurred outside of hospitals and went unaccounted for so far. The state of New York did something similar two days before, revising their figures with 3,700 new deaths as they started to include “assumed” coronavirus victims. The United Kingdom started counting deaths in care homes and private households on April 29, adjusting their number with about 5,000 new deaths (which were corrected lowered again by the same amount on August 18). This makes an already difficult comparison even more difficult. Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). This means two things. First, it could have a big impact on both current as well as future figures. On April 16 already, UK health experts stated that if their numbers were corrected for community deaths like in Wuhan, the UK number would change from 205 to “above 300”. This is exactly what happened two weeks later. Second, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which countries already have “revised” numbers (like Belgium, Wuhan or New York) and which ones do not. One work-around could be to look at (freely accessible) timelines that track the reported daily increase of deaths in certain countries. Several of these are available on our platform, such as for Belgium, Italy and Sweden. A sudden large increase might be an indicator that the domestic sources changed their methodology.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

The statistic shows the total population of India from 2019 to 2029. In 2023, the estimated total population in India amounted to approximately 1.43 billion people.

Total population in India

India currently has the second-largest population in the world and is projected to overtake top-ranking China within forty years. Its residents comprise more than one-seventh of the entire world’s population, and despite a slowly decreasing fertility rate (which still exceeds the replacement rate and keeps the median age of the population relatively low), an increasing life expectancy adds to an expanding population. In comparison with other countries whose populations are decreasing, such as Japan, India has a relatively small share of aged population, which indicates the probability of lower death rates and higher retention of the existing population.

With a land mass of less than half that of the United States and a population almost four times greater, India has recognized potential problems of its growing population. Government attempts to implement family planning programs have achieved varying degrees of success. Initiatives such as sterilization programs in the 1970s have been blamed for creating general antipathy to family planning, but the combined efforts of various family planning and contraception programs have helped halve fertility rates since the 1960s. The population growth rate has correspondingly shrunk as well, but has not yet reached less than one percent growth per year.

As home to thousands of ethnic groups, hundreds of languages, and numerous religions, a cohesive and broadly-supported effort to reduce population growth is difficult to create. Despite that, India is one country to watch in coming years. It is also a growing economic power; among other measures, its GDP per capita was expected to triple between 2003 and 2013 and was listed as the third-ranked country for its share of the global gross domestic product.

The genetic diversity of humans, like many species, has been shaped by a complex pattern of population separations followed by isolation and subsequent admixture. This pattern, reaching at least as far back as the appearance of our species in the paleontological record, has left its traces in our genomes. Reconstructing a population’s history from these traces is a challenging problem. Here we present a novel approach based on the Multiple Sequentially Markovian Coalescent (MSMC) to analyze the separation history between populations. Our approach, called MSMC-IM, uses an improved implementation of the MSMC (MSMC2) to estimate coalescence rates within and across pairs of populations, and then fits a continuous Isolation-Migration model to these rates to obtain a time-dependent estimate of gene flow. We show, using simulations, that our method can identify complex demographic scenarios involving post-split admixture or archaic introgression. We apply MSMC-IM to whole genome sequences from 15 worldwide populations, tracking the process of human genetic diversification. We detect traces of extremely deep ancestry between some African populations, with around 1% of ancestry dating to divergences older than a million years ago.

Georgia GE: Access to Electricity: % of Population data was reported at 100.000 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 99.993 % for 2015. Georgia GE: Access to Electricity: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 98.932 % from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2016, with 27 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 100.000 % in 2016 and a record low of 97.334 % in 1990. Georgia GE: Access to Electricity: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Georgia – Table GE.World Bank: Energy Production and Consumption. Access to electricity is the percentage of population with access to electricity. Electrification data are collected from industry, national surveys and international sources.; ; World Bank, Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) database from the SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework led jointly by the World Bank, International Energy Agency, and the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program.; Weighted average;

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

See Methodology document for country-specific geographic coverage details.

Universe

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

Kind of data

Observation data/ratings [obs]

Sampling procedure

The indicators in the 2017 Global Findex database are drawn from survey data covering almost 150,000 people in 144 economies-representing more than 97 percent of the world’s population (see Table A.1 of the Global Findex Database 2017 Report for a list of the economies included). The survey was carried out over the 2017 calendar year by Gallup, Inc., as part of its Gallup World Poll, which since 2005 has annually conducted surveys of approximately 1,000 people in each of more than 160 economies and in over 150 languages, using randomly selected, nationally representative samples. The target population is the entire civilian, noninstitutionalized population age 15 and above. Interview procedure Surveys are conducted face to face in economies where telephone coverage represents less than 80 percent of the population or where this 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. Each eligible household member is listed and the handheld survey device randomly selects the household member to be interviewed. For paper surveys, the Kish grid method is used to select the respondent. In economies where cultural restrictions dictate gender matching, respondents are randomly selected 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 household enumeration method. At least three attempts are made to reach a person in each household, spread over different days and times of day.

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 more than 140 languages upon request.

Questions on cash on delivery, saving using an informal savings club or person outside the family, domestic remittances, 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 Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, Saniya Ansar, and Jake Hess. 2018. The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution. Washington, DC: World Bank

The statistic shows the total population in Canada from 2019 to 2023, with projections up until 2029. In 2023, the total population in Canada amounted to about 39.97 million inhabitants. Population of Canada Canada ranks second among the largest countries in the world in terms of area size, right behind Russia, despite having a relatively low total population. The reason for this is that most of Canada remains uninhabited due to inhospitable conditions. Approximately 90 percent of all Canadians live within about 160 km of the U.S. border because of better living conditions and larger cities. On a year to year basis, Canada’s total population has continued to increase, although not dramatically. Population growth as of 2012 has amounted to its highest values in the past decade, reaching a peak in 2009, but was unstable and constantly fluctuating. Simultaneously, Canada’s fertility rate dropped slightly between 2009 and 2011, after experiencing a decade high birth rate in 2008. Standard of living in Canada has remained stable and has kept the country as one of the top 20 countries with the highest Human Development Index rating. The Human Development Index (HDI) measures quality of life based on several indicators, such as life expectancy at birth, literacy rate, education levels and gross national income per capita. Canada has a relatively high life expectancy compared to many other international countries, earning a spot in the top 20 countries and beating out countries such as the United States and the UK. From an economic standpoint, Canada has been slowly recovering from the 2008 financial crisis. Unemployment has gradually decreased, after reaching a decade high in 2009. Additionally, GDP has dramatically increased since 2009 and is expected to continue to increase for the next several years.

In 2024, the employment-to-population ratio worldwide was estimated to be approximately 58 percent, indicating that nearly 60 percent of the global population above 15 years was employed. Among the provided regions, Africa had the highest employment-to-population ratio, at 60 percent, with Europe and Central Asia having the lowest at 55 percent. Global income growth As greater portions of the population hold stable employment over time, income has also grown globally. From 1970 until today, North America has seen the largest increase in net national incomes per capita, but this increase has occurred in other regions as well. In terms of real wages, while they have grown over time, they have experienced a slight decrease in light of the high global inflation rates. Decrease in child labor Even though greater proportions of the population are employed, child labor has decreased over time. In 2000, there were 245 million children working, which has decreased to 160 million by 2020. The majority of working children are in the agricultural sector, especially younger children within the 5-11 and 12-14 age groups.

COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 14 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 14 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an

Abstract

Facebook’s Survey on Gender Equality at Home generates a global snapshot of women and men’s access to resources, their time spent on unpaid care work, and their attitudes about equality. This survey covers topics about gender dynamics and norms, unpaid caregiving, and life during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggregated data is available publicly on Humanitarian Data Exchange (HDX). De-identified microdata is also available to eligible nonprofits and universities through Facebook’s Data for Good (DFG) program. For more information, please email dataforgood@fb.com.

Geographic coverage

This survey is fielded once a year in over 200 countries and 60 languages. The data can help researchers track trends in gender equality and progress on the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis unit

• Public Aggregate Data on HDX: country or regional levels
• De-identified Microdata through Facebook Data for Good program: Individual level

Universe

The survey was fielded to active Facebook users.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Respondents were sampled across seven regions: - East Asia and Pacific; Europe and Central Asia - Latin America and Caribbean - Middle East and North Africa - North America - Sub-Saharan Africa - South Asia

For the purposes of this report, responses have been aggregated up to the regional level; these regional estimates form the basis of this report and its associated products (Regional Briefs). In order to ensure respondent confidentiality, these estimates are based on responses where a sufficient number of people responded to each question and thus where confidentiality can be assured. This results in a sample of 461,748 respondents.

The sampling frame for this survey is the global database of Facebook users who were active on the platform at least once over the past 28 days, which offers a number of advantages: It allows for the design, implementation, and launch of a survey in a timely manner. Large sample sizes allow for more questions to be asked through random assignment of modules, avoiding respondent fatigue. Samples may be drawn from diverse segments of the online population. Knowledge of the overall sampling frame allowed for more rigorous probabilistic sampling techniques and non-response adjustments than is typical for online and phone surveys

Mode of data collection

Internet [int]

Research instrument

The survey includes a total of 75 questions, split across into the following sections: - Basic demographics and gender norms - Decision making and resource allocation across household members - Unpaid caregiving - Additional household demographics and COVID-19 impact - Optional questions for special groups (e.g. students, business owners, the employed, and the unemployed)

Questions were developed collaboratively by a team of economists and gender experts from the World Bank, UN Women, Equal Measures 2030, and Ladysmith. Some of the questions have been borrowed from other surveys that employ alternative modes of administration (e.g., face-to-face, telephone surveys, etc.); this allows for comparability and identification of potential gaps and biases inherent to Facebook and other online survey platforms. As such, the survey also generates methodological insights that are useful to researchers undertaking alternative modes of data collection during the COVID-19 era.

In order to avoid “survey fatigue,” wherein respondents begin to disengage from the survey content and responses become less reliable, each respondent was only asked to answer a subset of questions. Specifically, each respondent saw a maximum of 30 questions, comprising demographics (asked of all respondents) and a set of additional questions randomly and purposely allocated to them.

Response rate

Response rates to online surveys vary widely depending on a number of factors including survey length, region, strength of the relationship with invitees, incentive mechanisms, invite copy, interest of respondents in the topic and survey design.

Sampling error estimates

Any survey data is prone to several forms of error and biases that need to be considered to understand how closely the results reflect the intended population. In particular, the following components of the total survey error are noteworthy:

Sampling error is a natural characteristic of every survey based on samples and reflects the uncertainty in any survey result that is attributable to the fact that not the whole population is surveyed.

Other factors beyond sampling error that contribute to such potential differences are frame or coverage error and nonresponse error.

Data appraisal

Survey Limitations The survey only captures respondents who: (1) have access to the Internet (2) are Facebook users (3) opt to take this survey through the Facebook platform. Knowledge of the overall demographics of the online population in each region allows for calibration such that estimates are representative at this level. However, this means the results only tell us something about the online population in each region, not the overall population. As such, the survey cannot generate global estimates or meaningful comparisons across countries and regions, given the heterogeneity in internet connectivity across countries. Estimates have only been generated for respondents who gave their gender as male or female. The survey included an “other” option but very few respondents selected it, making it impossible to generate meaningful estimates for non-binary populations. It is important to note that the survey was not designed to paint a comprehensive picture of household dynamics but rather to shed light on respondents’ reported experiences and roles within households

Chart and table of Philippines population from 1950 to 2025. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

Changelog:

Update September 20, 2021: Data and overview updated to reflect data used in the September 15 story Over Half of States Have Rolled Back Public Health Powers in Pandemic. It includes 303 state or local public health leaders who resigned, retired or were fired between April 1, 2020 and Sept. 12, 2021. Previous versions of this dataset reflected data used in the Dec. 2020 and April 2021 stories.

Overview

Across the U.S., state and local public health officials have found themselves at the center of a political storm as they combat the worst pandemic in a century. Amid a fractured federal response, the usually invisible army of workers charged with preventing the spread of infectious disease has become a public punching bag.

In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, at least 303 state or local public health leaders in 41 states have resigned, retired or been fired since April 1, 2020, according to an ongoing investigation by The Associated Press and KHN.

According to experts, that is the largest exodus of public health leaders in American history.

Many left due to political blowback or pandemic pressure, as they became the target of groups that have coalesced around a common goal — fighting and even threatening officials over mask orders and well-established public health activities like quarantines and contact tracing. Some left to take higher profile positions, or due to health concerns. Others were fired for poor performance. Dozens retired. An untold number of lower level staffers have also left.

The result is a further erosion of the nation’s already fragile public health infrastructure, which KHN and the AP documented beginning in 2020 in the Underfunded and Under Threat project.

Findings

The AP and KHN found that:

• One in five Americans live in a community that has lost its local public health department leader during the pandemic
• Top public health officials in 28 states have left state-level departments ## Using this data To filter for data specific to your state, use this query

To get total numbers of exits by state, broken down by state and local departments, use this query

Methodology

KHN and AP counted how many state and local public health leaders have left their jobs between April 1, 2020 and Sept. 12, 2021.

The government tasks public health workers with improving the health of the general population, through their work to encourage healthy living and prevent infectious disease. To that end, public health officials do everything from inspecting water and food safety to testing the nation’s babies for metabolic diseases and contact tracing cases of syphilis.

Many parts of the country have a health officer and a health director/administrator by statute. The analysis counted both of those positions if they existed. For state-level departments, the count tracks people in the top and second-highest-ranking job.

The analysis includes exits of top department officials regardless of reason, because no matter the reason, each left a vacancy at the top of a health agency during the pandemic. Reasons for departures include political pressure, health concerns and poor performance. Others left to take higher profile positions or to retire. Some departments had multiple top officials exit over the course of the pandemic; each is included in the analysis.

Reporters compiled the exit list by reaching out to public health associations and experts in every state and interviewing hundreds of public health employees. They also received information from the National Association of City and County Health Officials, and combed news reports and records.

Public health departments can be found at multiple levels of government. Each state has a department that handles these tasks, but most states also have local departments that either operate under local or state control. The population served by each local health department is calculated using the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 Population Estimates based on each department’s jurisdiction.

KHN and the AP have worked since the spring on a series of stories documenting the funding, staffing and problems around public health. A previous data distribution detailed a decade's worth of cuts to state and local spending and staffing on public health. That data can be found here.

Attribution

Findings and the data should be cited as: "According to a KHN and Associated Press report."

Is Data Missing?

If you know of a public health official in your state or area who has left that position between April 1, 2020 and Sept. 12, 2021 and isn't currently in our dataset, please contact authors Anna Maria Barry-Jester annab@kff.org, Hannah Recht hrecht@kff.org, Michelle Smith mrsmith@ap.org and Lauren Weber laurenw@kff.org.