placestats

Forest area vs. Public social spending

Holds up after adjusting for income

Across 42 countries, Forest area and Public social spending rise and fall together at r = +0.09 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). There is almost no link to explain.

Comparing countries across the middle half of public social spending, 17% to 24.5% of GDP, forest area is better by 2.05% of land area at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 6.89% of land area.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.092p = 0.562 · 42 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.287p = 0.069 · likely range [-0.02, +0.55]
p, allowing for regions0.015standard error 0.071 · 5 regions
Check for luck (q)0.036across 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.

Forest area · % of land arealink with income +0.03 · independent
Public social spending · % of GDPlink with income +0.44 · moderate

“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.

Every country as a dot

Forest area · % of land area →Public social spending · % of GDP →0.529%73.7%7.55%31.6%Australia: 17.4% of land area, 17.1% of GDPAustria: 47.2% of land area, 31.6% of GDPBelgium: 22.6% of land area, 28.6% of GDPBulgaria: 36.2% of land area, 20.5% of GDPCanada: 39.5% of land area, 19.3% of GDPSwitzerland: 32.4% of land area, 16% of GDPChile: 25% of land area, 12.9% of GDPColombia: 52.8% of land area, 14.1% of GDPCosta Rica: 60.4% of land area, 12.6% of GDPCzechia: 34.8% of land area, 22.1% of GDPGermany: 32.7% of land area, 27.9% of GDPDenmark: 15.8% of land area, 26.4% of GDPSpain: 37.2% of land area, 25.9% of GDPEstonia: 57.1% of land area, 17.2% of GDPFinland: 73.7% of land area, 31.4% of GDPFrance: 32.5% of land area, 30.6% of GDPUnited Kingdom: 13.3% of land area, 23% of GDPGreece: 30.3% of land area, 23.7% of GDPCroatia: 34.8% of land area, 22.5% of GDPHungary: 22.4% of land area, 18% of GDPIreland: 11.5% of land area, 14.4% of GDPIceland: 0.529% of land area, 19.2% of GDPIsrael: 6.47% of land area, 16.3% of GDPItaly: 32.9% of land area, 27.6% of GDPJapan: 68.4% of land area, 24.7% of GDPKorea, Rep.: 64.1% of land area, 15.3% of GDPLithuania: 35.2% of land area, 16.9% of GDPLuxembourg: 34.5% of land area, 24% of GDPLatvia: 55% of land area, 19.7% of GDPMexico: 33.6% of land area, 10% of GDPNetherlands: 11.1% of land area, 18.9% of GDPNorway: 33.5% of land area, 24.1% of GDPNew Zealand: 37.8% of land area, 24.6% of GDPPeru: 56.1% of land area, 7.55% of GDPPoland: 31.1% of land area, 23.1% of GDPPortugal: 36.2% of land area, 24.1% of GDPRomania: 30.1% of land area, 17.6% of GDPSlovak Republic: 40.1% of land area, 19.3% of GDPSlovenia: 61.2% of land area, 23% of GDPSweden: 68.7% of land area, 26.1% of GDPTurkiye: 29.5% of land area, 10.4% of GDPUnited States: 33.9% of land area, 19.8% of GDPBELCRIDNKFINFRAIRLISLISRJPNKORPERSWE

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted+0.0920.56242
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted+0.1300.41242
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income+0.2870.06942
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income+0.2820.07442

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 42 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: -0.195 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.197 (without FIN) to +0.359 (without KOR). 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: FIN (-0.090).

Fragile: this link may not hold up.
  • leave-one-out range spans 0.16 in r

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
Europe & Central Asia30+0.35

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 third14+0.12
Middle third14+0.19
Richest third14+0.43

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
Christians35+0.28

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 = +0.174 after dropping 2 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 34years. 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 = +0.045, 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 forest area moved did not tend to see their public social spending move with it.

Across countries (adjusted)+0.287for comparison
Within countries+0.336each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere+0.045q = 0.819 · 42 countries
Year-on-year changes-0.015q = 0.774
Read with care.
  • Almost all of the second indicator's variation is between countries, 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.

1,242 country-years (one country in one year), 42 countries, 1990–2023, about 30 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 17% for Forest area, 0% for Public social spending. 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

0.20−0.2-100+10years Public social spending trails Forest area →lag -10: r = 0.148 (n = 847)lag -9: r = 0.156 (n = 889)lag -8: r = 0.153 (n = 932)lag -7: r = 0.144 (n = 976)lag -6: r = 0.141 (n = 1,016)lag -5: r = 0.125 (n = 1,056)lag -4: r = 0.108 (n = 1,096)lag -3: r = 0.098 (n = 1,136)lag -2: r = 0.087 (n = 1,175)lag -1: r = 0.064 (n = 1,211)lag +0: r = 0.045 (n = 1,242)lag +1: r = 0.035 (n = 1,237)lag +2: r = 0.035 (n = 1,208)lag +3: r = 0.029 (n = 1,177)lag +4: r = 0.019 (n = 1,145)lag +5: r = 0.014 (n = 1,112)lag +6: r = 0.018 (n = 1,078)lag +7: r = 0.025 (n = 1,044)lag +8: r = 0.036 (n = 1,009)lag +9: r = 0.042 (n = 974)lag +10: r = 0.045 (n = 938)

Same year (lag 0): +0.045. 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.

The largest value on this curve (+0.16 at lag -9) is higher than the same-year one by 0.11. That gap is not a finding. It is the largest of 21 closely related estimates, and picking the biggest of many tests always makes it look bigger. That is exactly why nothing on this site is ranked or chosen by lag.

The data


% of land area
% of GDP		Years
Finland FIN73.7%31.4%2023, 2024
Sweden SWE68.7%26.1%2023, 2024
Japan JPN68.4%24.7%2023, 2022
Korea, Rep. KOR64.1%15.3%2023, 2024
Slovenia SVN61.2%23%2023, 2024
Costa Rica CRI60.4%12.6%2023, 2022
Estonia EST57.1%17.2%2023
Peru PER56.1%7.55%2023
Latvia LVA55%19.7%2023
Colombia COL52.8%14.1%2023
Austria AUT47.2%31.6%2023, 2024
Slovak Republic SVK40.1%19.3%2023
Canada CAN39.5%19.3%2023, 2022
New Zealand NZL37.8%24.6%2023, 2022
Spain ESP37.2%25.9%2023, 2024

World Bank, World Development Indicators
OECD databases as named on each indicator: PISA, Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), Income Distribution Database, Development Assistance Committee statistics, Family Database, Government at a Glance, Corporate Tax Statistics, employment and environment statistics

Sources

Forest area

Forest area (% of land area)

Food and Agriculture Organization · CC BY 4.0 · updated quarterly

Public social spending

Public social expenditure

OECD · via Our World in Data · CC BY 4.0 (OECD terms and conditions) · updated annual, except the snapshots noted per indicator · comparable from 1980 only

All public social spending, as a share of GDP: pensions, health, family, unemployment, housing and the rest. The figures before 1980 are stitched together from older OECD tables and from Lindert's historical estimates, so they are left out. The OECD's social spending database (SOCX) itself starts in 1980. The four spending areas below are parts of this total and are flagged as such.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2021–2024. 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 5 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 Forest area and Public social spending

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Forest area changes Public social spending, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.

More links with Forest area or Public social spending