Belarus vs Colombia: Coverage of social safety net programs in 2nd quintile
Coverage of social safety net programs in 2nd quintile over time
- Belarus
- Colombia
How they compare
Belarus currently reports 53.9% against 46.0% in Colombia, a difference of 7.9%.
That makes Belarus's figure about 1.2 times Colombia's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 8 shared years of data; in 2010 it was Colombia ahead.
Belarus ranks 19th and Colombia ranks 22nd of 39 countries.
Belarus has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher coverage of social safety net programs in 2nd quintile, Belarus or Colombia?
- Belarus, at 53.9% against 46.0% in Colombia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in coverage of social safety net programs in 2nd quintile between Belarus and Colombia?
- 7.9%, with Belarus ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Colombia?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2010 to 2019.
- How do Belarus and Colombia rank globally for coverage of social safety net programs in 2nd quintile?
- Belarus ranks 19th and Colombia ranks 22nd of 39 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection - Indicators of Resilience and Equity, World Bank (WB), published as Coverage of social safety net programs in 2nd quintile (% of population). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Coverage of social safety net programs shows the percentage of population participating in 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.