Belarus vs Brazil: Coverage of social safety net programs in poorest quintile
Coverage of social safety net programs in poorest quintile over time
- Belarus
- Brazil
How they compare
Brazil currently reports 64.3% against 60.8% in Belarus, a difference of 3.5%.
That makes Brazil's figure about 1.1 times Belarus's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 7 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Belarus ahead.
Belarus ranks 20th and Brazil ranks 19th of 39 countries.
Belarus has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Belarus | Brazil | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 71.1% | 22.8% | 48.3% | Belarus |
| 2010s | 61.5% | 54.9% | 6.7% | Belarus |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher coverage of social safety net programs in poorest quintile, Belarus or Brazil?
- Brazil, at 64.3% against 60.8% in Belarus as of 2022.
- What is the difference in coverage of social safety net programs in poorest quintile between Belarus and Brazil?
- 3.5%, with Brazil ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Brazil?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do Belarus and Brazil rank globally for coverage of social safety net programs in poorest quintile?
- Belarus ranks 20th and Brazil ranks 19th 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.