placestats

Adult literacy vs. Slum share of urban population

Holds up after adjusting for income

Across 132 countries, Adult literacy and Slum share of urban population rise and fall together at r = -0.73 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to -0.43 (q = 0.021, allowing for the many pairs tested). Much of the first figure is that both measures rise with national income, but a moderate negative link remains. Caution: direction is not consistent across regions.

Comparing countries across the middle half of adult literacy, 74.2% to 97.8% of adults, slum share of urban population is better by 23.6% of urban population at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 13.9% of urban population.

Link before adjusting (r)-0.726p = 7.2e-23 · 132 countries
After adjusting for national income-0.433p = 2.4e-7 · likely range [-0.56, -0.28]
p, allowing for regions0.001standard error 0.063 · 6 regions
Check for luck (q)0.021across 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.

Adult literacy · % of adultslink with income +0.73 · high
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

Adult literacy · % of adults →Slum share of urban population · % of urban population →30.6%100%0%92.5%Aruba: 96.8% of adults, 0% of urban populationAfghanistan: 37.3% of adults, 71.6% of urban populationAngola: 68.2% of adults, 62.7% of urban populationAlbania: 97.7% of adults, 2.7% of urban populationUnited Arab Emirates: 98.8% of adults, 0.113% of urban populationArgentina: 99.1% of adults, 14.5% of urban populationArmenia: 99.8% of adults, 8.39% of urban populationAzerbaijan: 99.8% of adults, 26.9% of urban populationBurundi: 71.3% of adults, 36.8% of urban populationBenin: 51.4% of adults, 64% of urban populationBurkina Faso: 41.6% of adults, 87.9% of urban populationBangladesh: 79% of adults, 51.5% of urban populationBulgaria: 98.3% of adults, 0.197% of urban populationBahrain: 97.8% of adults, 0% of urban populationBosnia and Herzegovina: 97% of adults, 0.313% of urban populationBelarus: 99.9% of adults, 0.004% of urban populationBelize: 87.9% of adults, 15.7% of urban populationBolivia: 96.7% of adults, 46.6% of urban populationBrazil: 94.7% of adults, 14.9% of urban populationBrunei Darussalam: 96.1% of adults, 21.6% of urban populationBhutan: 64.9% of adults, 44.7% of urban populationCentral African Republic: 42.4% of adults, 68.9% of urban populationChile: 96.4% of adults, 7.32% of urban populationChina: 96.7% of adults, 26.3% of urban populationCote d'Ivoire: 50% of adults, 48.3% of urban populationCameroon: 72.6% of adults, 32.7% of urban populationCongo, Dem. Rep.: 68.5% of adults, 78.4% of urban populationColombia: 95.3% of adults, 9.7% of urban populationComoros: 75.6% of adults, 48.5% of urban populationCabo Verde: 88.5% of adults, 46.4% of urban populationCosta Rica: 97.4% of adults, 3.55% of urban populationCayman Islands: 98.9% of adults, 5.48% of urban populationCyprus: 98.7% of adults, 0.272% of urban populationDominican Republic: 94% of adults, 11.2% of urban populationEcuador: 93.5% of adults, 57.8% of urban populationEgypt, Arab Rep.: 79.5% of adults, 3.84% of urban populationSpain: 99.7% of adults, 0.046% of urban populationEstonia: 99.9% of adults, 0.345% of urban populationEthiopia: 60.5% of adults, 64.3% of urban populationGabon: 88.9% of adults, 38.8% of urban populationGeorgia: 99.7% of adults, 7.08% of urban populationGhana: 76.5% of adults, 33.5% of urban populationGuinea: 39.6% of adults, 44% of urban populationGambia, The: 51.6% of adults, 37.1% of urban populationGuinea-Bissau: 63.9% of adults, 59% of urban populationGuatemala: 82.1% of adults, 37.6% of urban populationGuyana: 85.6% of adults, 11.3% of urban populationHonduras: 88.3% of adults, 31.5% of urban populationHaiti: 68% of adults, 51.1% of urban populationIndonesia: 96% of adults, 19.4% of urban populationIndia: 78.2% of adults, 5.41% of urban populationIran, Islamic Rep.: 88.9% of adults, 44.7% of urban populationIraq: 84.1% of adults, 49.3% of urban populationItaly: 99.3% of adults, 0.02% of urban populationJordan: 94.4% of adults, 23.4% of urban populationCambodia: 71.9% of adults, 42.3% of urban populationKiribati: 98.6% of adults, 5.93% of urban populationKuwait: 96.5% of adults, 0% of urban populationLao PDR: 75.6% of adults, 54.8% of urban populationLebanon: 92% of adults, 4.53% of urban populationLiberia: 59.4% of adults, 60.5% of urban populationSri Lanka: 92.7% of adults, 44.7% of urban populationLesotho: 90.4% of adults, 25.6% of urban populationLithuania: 99.8% of adults, 0.509% of urban populationLatvia: 99.9% of adults, 0.593% of urban populationMorocco: 64.3% of adults, 10.9% of urban populationMoldova: 99.4% of adults, 6.5% of urban populationMadagascar: 74.7% of adults, 65.7% of urban populationMaldives: 98.2% of adults, 34.8% of urban populationMexico: 95.6% of adults, 17.6% of urban populationMarshall Islands: 95.8% of adults, 2.38% of urban populationMali: 35.6% of adults, 92.5% of urban populationMalta: 93.3% of adults, 0.0375% of urban populationMyanmar: 93.5% of adults, 58.3% of urban populationMontenegro: 98.5% of adults, 8.77% of urban populationMongolia: 98.6% of adults, 17.9% of urban populationMozambique: 61.7% of adults, 55% of urban populationMauritania: 59.5% of adults, 58.6% of urban populationMauritius: 94.3% of adults, 48.7% of urban populationMalawi: 70.2% of adults, 38% of urban populationMalaysia: 95.8% of adults, 0.2% of urban populationNamibia: 87.6% of adults, 41.4% of urban populationNiger: 35.6% of adults, 70.4% of urban populationNigeria: 70.4% of adults, 48.5% of urban populationNicaragua: 87.3% of adults, 5.52% of urban populationNepal: 68.7% of adults, 40.1% of urban populationNaoero: 96.6% of adults, 0.597% of urban populationOman: 97.3% of adults, 0% of urban populationPakistan: 58.9% of adults, 56% of urban populationPanama: 96.2% of adults, 16.3% of urban populationPeru: 93.7% of adults, 45.1% of urban populationPhilippines: 98.5% of adults, 35.9% of urban populationPalau: 99.8% of adults, 0.618% of urban populationPapua New Guinea: 87% of adults, 22.3% of urban populationPortugal: 94.5% of adults, 0.059% of urban populationParaguay: 94.9% of adults, 15.1% of urban populationWest Bank and Gaza: 97.9% of adults, 19.5% of urban populationQatar: 97.8% of adults, 0% of urban populationRomania: 99.2% of adults, 2.52% of urban populationRussian Federation: 99.9% of adults, 2.62% of urban populationRwanda: 78.8% of adults, 38.3% of urban populationSaudi Arabia: 97.9% of adults, 0.55% of urban populationSenegal: 50.4% of adults, 46.4% of urban populationSingapore: 97.7% of adults, 0% of urban populationSierra Leone: 43.6% of adults, 49.3% of urban populationEl Salvador: 89.8% of adults, 16.5% of urban populationSomalia, Fed. Rep.: 54.1% of adults, 48.7% of urban populationSerbia: 99.3% of adults, 1.42% of urban populationSao Tome and Principe: 87.4% of adults, 82.4% of urban populationSuriname: 92.9% of adults, 15.8% of urban populationEswatini: 90.8% of adults, 17% of urban populationSeychelles: 93.9% of adults, 48.7% of urban populationSyrian Arab Republic: 94.4% of adults, 41.1% of urban populationChad: 30.6% of adults, 82% of urban populationTogo: 72.6% of adults, 38.5% of urban populationThailand: 91.1% of adults, 2% of urban populationTurkmenistan: 99.9% of adults, 8.38% of urban populationTimor-Leste: 69.4% of adults, 33.9% of urban populationTonga: 99.5% of adults, 0.308% of urban populationTunisia: 86.3% of adults, 7.64% of urban populationTurkiye: 97.3% of adults, 14.1% of urban populationTuvalu: 100% of adults, 50.9% of urban populationTanzania: 78.2% of adults, 70.1% of urban populationUganda: 77% of adults, 52.7% of urban populationUruguay: 98.9% of adults, 1.3% of urban populationUzbekistan: 100% of adults, 7.1% of urban populationViet Nam: 96.1% of adults, 32.5% of urban populationVanuatu: 88% of adults, 3.06% of urban populationSamoa: 98% of adults, 34.6% of urban populationSouth Africa: 91.2% of adults, 24.2% of urban populationZambia: 71.8% of adults, 48.3% of urban populationZimbabwe: 93.2% of adults, 54.9% of urban populationBFABLRESPESTGINGMBMARMLIMMRSTPTCDTUV

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted-0.7267.2e-23132
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted-0.7183.1e-22132
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income-0.4332.4e-7132
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income-0.3741.1e-5132

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 132 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: +0.293 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.463 (without STP) to -0.402 (without MLI). 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: MLI (+0.031).

Fragile: this link may not hold up.
  • direction is not consistent across regions

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.

nr
East Asia & Pacific22-0.31
Europe & Central Asia22+0.08
Latin America & Caribbean23-0.11
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan18-0.39
Sub-Saharan Africa41-0.41

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.

nr
Poorest third44-0.52
Middle third44-0.37
Richest third44-0.30

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.

nr
Christians71-0.40
Muslims42-0.51

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.

nr
France22-0.57
Never a European colony16-0.48
Spain18+0.33
United Kingdom42-0.24

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 = -0.361 after dropping 4 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 = -0.143, 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 adult literacy moved did not tend to see their slum share of urban population move with it.

Across countries (adjusted)-0.433for comparison
Within countries-0.523each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere-0.143q = 0.454 · 30 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.

203 country-years (one country in one year), 30 countries, 2000–2022, about 7 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 8% for Adult literacy, 10% 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

The data


% of adults
% of urban population		Years
Uzbekistan UZB100%7.1%2022
Tuvalu TUV100%50.9%2022
Russian Federation RUS99.9%2.62%2021, 2022
Turkmenistan TKM99.9%8.38%2022
Latvia LVA99.9%0.593%2011, 2022
Estonia EST99.9%0.345%2011, 2022
Belarus BLR99.9%0.004%2019
Palau PLW99.8%0.618%2020, 2022
Armenia ARM99.8%8.39%2023, 2022
Lithuania LTU99.8%0.509%2011, 2022
Azerbaijan AZE99.8%26.9%2023, 2012
Spain ESP99.7%0.046%2021, 2022
Georgia GEO99.7%7.08%2024, 2022
Tonga TON99.5%0.308%2023, 2022
Moldova MDA99.4%6.5%2014, 2018

World Bank, World Development Indicators
World Bank, World Development Indicators

Sources

Adult literacy

Literacy rate, adult total (% of people ages 15 and above)

UNESCO Institute for Statistics · CC BY 4.0 · updated quarterly

Reported only in census or survey years for most countries, so the data are sparse and uneven rather than yearly.

Slum share of urban population

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 2010–2024. 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 6 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 Adult literacy and Slum share of urban population

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Adult literacy changes Slum share of urban population, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.

More links with Adult literacy or Slum share of urban population