Chile vs Ecuador: Adequacy of social protection and labor programs
Adequacy of social protection and labor programs over time
- Chile
- Ecuador
How they compare
Ecuador currently reports 28.4% against 28.3% in Chile, a difference of 0.1%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 5 shared years of data; in 2011 it was Ecuador ahead.
Chile ranks 22nd and Ecuador ranks 21st of 37 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Chile averaged higher in 1 and Ecuador in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chile | Ecuador | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 17.0% | 25.2% | 8.1% | Ecuador |
| 2020s | 26.0% | 21.2% | 4.8% | Chile |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher adequacy of social protection and labor programs, Chile or Ecuador?
- Ecuador, at 28.4% against 28.3% in Chile as of 2022.
- What is the difference in adequacy of social protection and labor programs between Chile and Ecuador?
- 0.1%, with Ecuador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Ecuador?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2011 to 2022.
- How do Chile and Ecuador rank globally for adequacy of social protection and labor programs?
- Chile ranks 22nd and Ecuador ranks 21st of 37 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection - Indicators of Resilience and Equity, World Bank (WB), published as Adequacy of social protection and labor programs (% of total welfare of beneficiary households). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Adequacy of social protection and labor programs (SPL) is measured by the total transfer amount received by the population participating in social insurance, social safety net, and unemployment benefits and active labor market programs as a share of their total welfare. Welfare is defined as the total income or total expenditure of beneficiary households. Estimates include both direct and indirect beneficiaries.