Kazakhstan vs Mongolia: Benefit-cost ratio - All Social Protection and Labor -1st quintile
Kazakhstan
0.3604 poorest
in 2021
Mongolia
0.3701 poorest
in 2020
Kazakhstan rank
12th
Mongolia rank
11th
Benefit-cost ratio - All Social Protection and Labor -1st quintile over time
- Kazakhstan
- Mongolia
How they compare
Mongolia currently reports 0.3701 poorest against 0.3604 poorest in Kazakhstan, a difference of 0.0097 poorest.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 5 shared years of data; in 2007 it was Mongolia ahead.
Kazakhstan ranks 12th and Mongolia ranks 11th of 37 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Kazakhstan averaged higher in 1 and Mongolia in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kazakhstan | Mongolia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.1919 poorest | 0.29 poorest | 0.0981 poorest | Mongolia |
| 2010s | 0.335 poorest | 0.3075 poorest | 0.0275 poorest | Kazakhstan |
| 2020s | 0.359 poorest | 0.3701 poorest | 0.011 poorest | Mongolia |
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, Kazakhstan or Mongolia?
- Mongolia, at 0.3701 poorest against 0.3604 poorest in Kazakhstan as of 2020.
- What is the difference in benefit-cost ratio - all social protection and labor -1st quintile between Kazakhstan and Mongolia?
- 0.0097 poorest, with Mongolia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kazakhstan and Mongolia?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2007 to 2020.
- How do Kazakhstan and Mongolia rank globally for benefit-cost ratio - all social protection and labor -1st quintile?
- Kazakhstan ranks 12th and Mongolia ranks 11th 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 (%)