How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Kyrgyzstan?

8 years are reported by both, from 2012 to 2019.

Where does this data come from?

ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection - Indicators of Resilience and Equity, World Bank (WB), published as Benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile (% of total safety net benefits). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Belarus vs Kyrgyzstan: Benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile

Belarus

28.8%

in 2019

Kyrgyzstan

29.3%

in 2020

Belarus rank

17th

Kyrgyzstan rank

16th

Benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile over time

Belarus
Kyrgyzstan

How they compare

Kyrgyzstan currently reports 29.3% against 28.8% in Belarus, a difference of 0.5%.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 8 shared years of data; in 2012 it was Belarus ahead.

Belarus ranks 17th and Kyrgyzstan ranks 16th of 35 countries.

Kyrgyzstan has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile, Belarus or Kyrgyzstan?: Kyrgyzstan, at 29.3% against 28.8% in Belarus as of 2020.
What is the difference in benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile between Belarus and Kyrgyzstan?: 0.5%, with Kyrgyzstan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Kyrgyzstan?: 8 years are reported by both, from 2012 to 2019.
How do Belarus and Kyrgyzstan rank globally for benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile?: Belarus ranks 17th and Kyrgyzstan ranks 16th of 35 countries.
Where does this data come from?: ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection - Indicators of Resilience and Equity, World Bank (WB), published as Benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile (% of total safety net benefits). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Belarus vs Kyrgyzstan: Benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile. Statizoid, drawing on ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection - Indicators of Resilience and Equity, World Bank (WB). Retrieved 17 September 2026, from https://labour.statizoid.com/compare/benefit-incidence-of-social-safety-net-programs-to-poorest-quintile-percent-of-total/belarus/kyrgyz-republic/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://labour.statizoid.com/compare/benefit-incidence-of-social-safety-net-programs-to-poorest-quintile-percent-of-total/belarus/kyrgyz-republic/">Belarus vs Kyrgyzstan: Benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator: Benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile (% of total safety net benefits)
Unit: % of total safety net benefits
Source: ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection - Indicators of Resilience and Equity, World Bank (WB)
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage: 35 places, 348 data points, 2004–2023
Last refreshed: 17 September 2026

Benefit incidence of social safety net programs to poorest quintile shows the percentage of total social safety net benefits received by the poorest 20% of the population. Social safety net programs include cash transfers and last resort programs, noncontributory social pensions, other cash transfers programs (child, family and orphan allowances, birth and death grants, disability benefits, and other allowances), conditional cash transfers, in-kind food transfers (food stamps and vouchers, food rations, supplementary feeding, and emergency food distribution), school feeding, other social assistance programs (housing allowances, scholarships, fee waivers, health subsidies, and other social assistance) and public works programs (cash for work and food for work). Estimates include both direct and indirect beneficiaries.