Argentina vs Belarus: Coverage of social safety net programs in poorest quintile
Coverage of social safety net programs in poorest quintile over time
- Argentina
- Belarus
How they compare
Argentina currently reports 68.9% against 60.8% in Belarus, a difference of 8.1%.
That makes Argentina's figure about 1.1 times Belarus's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 8 shared years of data; in 2010 it was Belarus ahead.
Argentina ranks 18th and Belarus ranks 20th 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 poorest quintile, Argentina or Belarus?
- Argentina, at 68.9% against 60.8% in Belarus as of 2022.
- What is the difference in coverage of social safety net programs in poorest quintile between Argentina and Belarus?
- 8.1%, with Argentina ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Argentina and Belarus?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2010 to 2019.
- How do Argentina and Belarus rank globally for coverage of social safety net programs in poorest quintile?
- Argentina ranks 18th and Belarus ranks 20th 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 poorest 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.