Infrastructure score vs. Public social spending
Fades after adjusting for income
Across 42 countries, Infrastructure score and Public social spending rise and fall together at r = +0.57 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to +0.37, which could easily be chance (q = 0.097, allowing for the many pairs tested, and allowing for countries in the same region being alike). So the first figure mostly shows richer countries differing from poorer ones, not a link between these two things. Caution: leave-one-out range spans 0.23 in r.
Comparing countries across the middle half of public social spending, 17% to 24.5% of GDP, infrastructure score is better by 0.139 typical gaps at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 0.0678 typical gaps.
Link before adjusting (r)+0.567p = 9.0e-5 · 42 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.369p = 0.018 · likely range [+0.07, +0.61]
p, allowing for regions0.020standard error 0.098 · 5 regions
Check for luck (q)0.097across 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.
Infrastructure score · typical gaps (standard deviations)link with income +0.90 · proxy
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
best-fit line line after adjusting
Four ways to measure the link
| Method | r | p | Countries |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard (Pearson), not adjusted | +0.567 | 9.0e-5 | 42 |
| By rank (Spearman), not adjusted | +0.479 | 0.001 | 42 |
| Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income | +0.369 | 0.018 | 42 |
| By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income | +0.263 | 0.096 | 42 |
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: +0.198 (a minus sign means it grew).
How solid is it?
Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.224 (without IRL) to +0.452 (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: IRL (-0.145).
Fragile: this link may not hold up.
- leave-one-out range spans 0.23 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.
| n | r | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Europe & Central Asia | 30 | +0.36 |
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 | 14 | +0.58 | |
| Middle third | 14 | -0.02 | |
| Richest third | 14 | +0.05 |
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 | 35 | +0.42 |
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 = +0.369 after dropping 0 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 0years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.
Not enough history inside each country to look at this over time. That needs countries measured for several years in a row, and at least one of these measures is measured too rarely.
The data
typical gaps (standard deviations) | % of GDP | Years | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Korea, Rep. KOR | 1.72 | 15.3% | 2024 |
| Switzerland CHE | 1.7 | 16% | 2024 |
| France FRA | 1.7 | 30.6% | 2024 |
| Norway NOR | 1.68 | 24.1% | 2024 |
| Denmark DNK | 1.65 | 26.4% | 2024 |
| Germany DEU | 1.65 | 27.9% | 2024 |
| Belgium BEL | 1.64 | 28.6% | 2024 |
| Netherlands NLD | 1.63 | 18.9% | 2024 |
| Portugal PRT | 1.6 | 24.1% | 2024 |
| United Kingdom GBR | 1.6 | 23% | 2024, 2023 |
| Luxembourg LUX | 1.59 | 24% | 2024 |
| Greece GRC | 1.57 | 23.7% | 2024 |
| Sweden SWE | 1.57 | 26.1% | 2024 |
| Canada CAN | 1.56 | 19.3% | 2024, 2022 |
| Spain ESP | 1.55 | 25.9% | 2024 |
wdi
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
Infrastructure score
Infrastructure score
PlaceStats · via PlaceStats · Derived work; each member keeps its own licence · updated recomputed with the panel
The average of 5 measures from 1 publisher. Each measure is first put on a common scale: 0 is the average country in an average year, and 1 is a typical gap between countries (a standard deviation). Each is turned so that higher is better. Measures are averaged within each publisher first, so a publisher with many measures does not count for more. Members: Electricity access, Slum share of urban population, Mobile subscriptions, Fixed broadband, Internet users.
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 Infrastructure score and Public social spending
This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Infrastructure score changes Public social spending, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.
More links with Infrastructure score or Public social spending
- Public social spending vs Redistribution before +0.73 → after adjusting +0.69
- Median age vs Public social spending before +0.65 → after adjusting +0.59
- Public social spending vs Under-5 mortality before -0.65 → after adjusting -0.52
- Infant mortality vs Public social spending before -0.65 → after adjusting -0.52
- Public social spending vs Slum share of urban population before -0.63 → after adjusting -0.50
- Population 0-14 vs Public social spending before -0.56 → after adjusting -0.48
- Extreme poverty rate vs Infrastructure score before -0.81 → after adjusting -0.46
- Family benefits spending vs Public social spending before +0.53 → after adjusting +0.44