Adolescent fertility vs. Slum share of urban population
Holds up after adjusting for income
Across 184 countries, Adolescent fertility and Slum share of urban population rise and fall together at r = +0.76 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to +0.44 (q = 0.034, allowing for the many pairs tested). Much of the first figure is that both measures rise with national income, but a moderate positive link remains.
Comparing countries across the middle half of adolescent fertility, 8.48 to 62.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19, slum share of urban population is worse by 26.4% of urban population at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 15.9% of urban population.
Link before adjusting (r)+0.756p = 2.5e-35 · 184 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.443p = 3.5e-10 · likely range [+0.32, +0.55]
p, allowing for regions0.002standard error 0.088 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.034across 12,497 pairs
How to read these.r runs from −1 (one goes up as the other goes down) to +1 (they rise together), and 0 means no link. Adjusting for national income means comparing countries with the same GDP per person, so differences in wealth can’t explain the link. Income is used in percentage terms, since an extra $1,000 means more to a poor country than to a rich one. p is how likely a link this strong would be if there were really none. Below 0.05 means it is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 1.1e-32 means a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then 11, so very close to zero. The likely range is where the true figure probably lies, and a range that crosses zero means the link could easily be chance. Countries in the same region tend to resemble each other, so the third figure allows for that, which gives a fairer p. The standard error is the typical size of the error in r. Finally, testing this many pairs means some will look strong by luck alone. A q below 0.05 means this link is unlikely to be one of those.
Adolescent fertility · births per 1,000 women aged 15-19link with income -0.81 · proxy
Slum share of urban population · % of urban populationlink with income -0.78 · high
Both of these rise and fall closely with national income, so a strong link between them before adjusting was close to certain. Read the adjusted figure, not the first one.
“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.
Every country as a dot
best-fit line line after adjusting
Four ways to measure the link
Method
r
p
Countries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted
+0.756
2.5e-35
184
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted
+0.778
1.5e-38
184
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income
+0.443
3.5e-10
184
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income
+0.389
5.2e-8
184
The rank version uses only each country’s place in line, from lowest to highest, so a few extreme countries count for less. The adjusted and unadjusted versions use the same 184 countries: those that report both measures and GDP per person. So the gap between them comes from the adjustment, not from a change in which countries are counted. Drop in the size of r after adjusting: +0.313 (a minus sign means it grew).
How solid is it?
Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.413 (without GNQ) to +0.462 (without NIC). The bar above shows that range on a scale from −1 to +1, with the solid line at the full result. The single country that moves r most: GNQ (-0.030).
Within each region
Countries are not separate, unrelated cases, and neighbors share a lot. A link that holds inside each region is far more believable than one that shows up only when comparing regions.
n
r
East Asia & Pacific
28
-0.04
Europe & Central Asia
49
+0.33
Latin America & Caribbean
31
+0.19
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan
21
+0.48
Sub-Saharan Africa
46
+0.43
By income third
If the link shows up only in the richest third of countries, it is a feature of rich countries, not a general pattern.
n
r
Poorest third
62
+0.46
Middle third
61
+0.39
Richest third
61
+0.46
By largest religious group
Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.
n
r
Christians
106
+0.58
Muslims
49
+0.53
By last european coloniser
Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.
n
r
France
25
+0.51
Never a European colony
21
+0.28
Spain
19
+0.43
United Kingdom
57
+0.27
Without outliers (countries far outside the middle half of countries on either measure, by more than one and a half times the width of that middle half): r = +0.426 after dropping 3 countries.
Two series, one country
Both measures over the years for one country you pick. The two charts are stacked so they share only the years along the bottom.
Loading…
Over time, within countries
Everything above compares countries with each other at one moment. This section compares each country only with itself over 23years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.
Within countries over time, there is no link that is clearly more than chance (r = +0.042, comparing each country only with itself over the years, and each year only with the same year elsewhere). Whatever the cross-country picture shows, countries whose adolescent fertility moved did not tend to see their slum share of urban population move with it.
Across countries (adjusted)+0.443for comparison
Within countries+0.338each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere+0.042q = 0.619 · 174 countries
Year-on-year changes—q = —
Read with care.
Almost all of this indicator's variation is between countries, not within them, so the within-country estimate rests on a small part of the data.
Much of the within-country association disappears once shared global year effects are removed, which points to a common worldwide trend rather than a country-level relationship.
1,988 country-years (one country in one year), 174 countries, 2000–2022, about 11 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 4% for Adolescent fertility, 8% for Slum share of urban population. The margins of error allow for each country appearing many times, and for each year’s value being close to the year before.
Year-to-year changes are a cautious test, not a final answer. Looking only at changes from one year to the next removes each country’s own trends. But it also makes measurement mistakes louder, which pulls the results toward zero. A near-zero result here is weak evidence of no link, not proof.
With one measure years behind the other
Same year (lag 0): +0.042. A peak away from zero does not show which comes first. These series change slowly — this year’s value is close to last year’s. That makes the curve smooth and nearly symmetric, whatever produced the data. Even a sharp peak at one lag (a gap of some years) would not prove that one measure changes the other.
This curve peaks at the edge of the window (lag +10), so it is still drifting where the search stops. That pattern usually reflects a slow trend left over in the data, not a link with real timing. The peak value should not be read as the “true” link at the right lag.
The data
births per 1,000 women aged 15-19
% of urban population
Years
Central African Republic CAF
161
68.9%
2024, 2022
Equatorial Guinea GNQ
153
64.7%
2024, 2022
Mozambique MOZ
152
55%
2024, 2022
Niger NER
142
70.4%
2024, 2022
Angola AGO
139
62.7%
2024, 2022
Mali MLI
136
92.5%
2024, 2022
Chad TCD
132
82%
2024, 2022
Madagascar MDG
129
65.7%
2024, 2022
Liberia LBR
125
60.5%
2024, 2022
Guinea GIN
117
44%
2024, 2022
Zambia ZMB
115
48.3%
2024, 2022
Somalia, Fed. Rep. SOM
115
48.7%
2024, 2022
Malawi MWI
113
38%
2024, 2022
Tanzania TZA
113
70.1%
2024, 2022
Congo, Rep. COG
108
75.3%
2024, 2022
World Bank, World Development Indicators World Bank, World Development Indicators
Population living in slums (% of urban population)
UN-Habitat · CC BY 4.0 · updated quarterly
How this was computed
Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2012–2024. To adjust for income, each measure is first predicted from GDP per person (in percentage terms, on a log scale) with a straight-line fit. Only what is left over is then compared. This is called a partial correlation. The line is drawn the standard way (ordinary least squares), which picks the line that comes closest to all the countries at once. The error margins allow for countries in the same region resembling each other, using 7 World Bank regions. The q-value corrects for testing all 12,497 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Adolescent fertility and Slum share of urban population
This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Adolescent fertility changes Slum share of urban population, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.
More links with Adolescent fertility or Slum share of urban population