Ecuador vs South Africa: Benefit-cost ratio - All Social Protection and Labor -1st quintile
Ecuador
0.1008 poorest
in 2022
South Africa
0.0439 poorest
in 2021
Ecuador rank
33rd
South Africa rank
36th
Benefit-cost ratio - All Social Protection and Labor -1st quintile over time
- Ecuador
- South Africa
How they compare
Ecuador currently reports 0.1008 poorest against 0.0439 poorest in South Africa, a difference of 0.0569 poorest.
That makes Ecuador's figure about 2.3 times South Africa's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 7 shared years of data; in 2010 it was South Africa ahead.
Ecuador ranks 33rd and South Africa ranks 36th of 37 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 1 and South Africa in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | South Africa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 0.1148 poorest | 0.1582 poorest | 0.0434 poorest | South Africa |
| 2020s | 0.1284 poorest | 0.0396 poorest | 0.0888 poorest | Ecuador |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher benefit-cost ratio - all social protection and labor -1st quintile, Ecuador or South Africa?
- Ecuador, at 0.1008 poorest against 0.0439 poorest in South Africa as of 2022.
- What is the difference in benefit-cost ratio - all social protection and labor -1st quintile between Ecuador and South Africa?
- 0.0569 poorest, with Ecuador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and South Africa?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2010 to 2021.
- How do Ecuador and South Africa rank globally for benefit-cost ratio - all social protection and labor -1st quintile?
- Ecuador ranks 33rd and South Africa ranks 36th of 37 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- ASPIRE, published as Benefit-cost ratio - All Social Protection and Labor -1st quintile (poorest). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Poverty gap reduction obtained for each $1 spent in SPL programs (%)