Georgia vs Peru: Coverage of social safety net programs in richest quintile
Coverage of social safety net programs in richest quintile over time
- Georgia
- Peru
How they compare
Georgia currently reports 55.8% against 51.8% in Peru, a difference of 4.0%.
That makes Georgia's figure about 1.1 times Peru's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2011 it was Georgia ahead.
Georgia ranks 6th and Peru ranks 7th of 39 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Georgia averaged higher in 1 and Peru in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Georgia | Peru | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 51.0% | 24.9% | 26.2% | Georgia |
| 2020s | 54.9% | 59.7% | 4.8% | Peru |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher coverage of social safety net programs in richest quintile, Georgia or Peru?
- Georgia, at 55.8% against 51.8% in Peru as of 2021.
- What is the difference in coverage of social safety net programs in richest quintile between Georgia and Peru?
- 4.0%, with Georgia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Georgia and Peru?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2011 to 2021.
- How do Georgia and Peru rank globally for coverage of social safety net programs in richest quintile?
- Georgia ranks 6th and Peru ranks 7th 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 richest 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.