Do One-person households and Regulatory quality go together across countries?

Across 148 countries the link before adjusting for anything is r = +0.67, on a scale from -1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). A version that uses only each country's rank gives +0.67.

Does the link hold within countries over time, not just across countries?

Comparing each country only with itself across 1996-2021, and setting aside what happened worldwide in each year, the link is +0.059 (41 countries, 267 country-years). Using year-to-year changes, it is —.

Does One-person households cause Regulatory quality?

This analysis cannot answer that. It shows only that the two go together. A link between two country measures, adjusted or not, does not show that either one changes the other. Country figures also say nothing about individual people.

One-person households vs. Regulatory quality

Fades after adjusting for income

Across 148 countries, One-person households and Regulatory quality rise and fall together at r = +0.67 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to +0.30, which could easily be chance (q = 0.073, 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.

Comparing countries across the middle half of one-person households, 6.6% to 22.6% of households, regulatory quality is better by 0.902 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 0.334 points.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.669p = 1.6e-20 · 148 countries

After adjusting for national income+0.300p = 0.000 · likely range [+0.14, +0.44]

p, allowing for regions0.010standard error 0.081 · 7 regions

Check for luck (q)0.073across 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.

One-person households · % of householdslink with income +0.70 · high

Regulatory quality · index (approx. -2.5 to 2.5)link with income +0.83 · proxy

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	+0.669	1.6e-20	148
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted	+0.665	2.9e-20	148
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income	+0.300	0.000	148
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income	+0.239	0.004	148

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 148 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: +0.369 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.273 (without FIN) to +0.367 (without BLR). 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: BLR (+0.067).

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	22	+0.31
Europe & Central Asia	40	+0.21
Latin America & Caribbean	25	+0.26
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan	12	+0.19
Sub-Saharan Africa	41	+0.34

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	50	+0.30
Middle third	49	+0.23
Richest third	49	+0.25

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	92	+0.22
Muslims	37	+0.32

By last european coloniser

	n	r
France	22	+0.11
Never a European colony	15	+0.77
Spain	16	-0.31
United Kingdom	44	+0.36

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 = +0.300 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 26years. 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 = +0.059, 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 one-person households moved did not tend to see their regulatory quality move with it.

Across countries (adjusted)+0.300for comparison

Within countries+0.196each country vs itself

…and vs the same year elsewhere+0.059q = 0.609 · 41 countries

Year-on-year changes—q = —

267 country-years (one country in one year), 41 countries, 1996–2021, about 7 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 14% for One-person households, 12% for Regulatory quality. 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): +0.059. 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 (+0.14 at lag +1) is higher than the same-year one by 0.08. That gap is not a finding. It is the largest of 14 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 households	index (approx. -2.5 to 2.5)	Years
Latvia LVA	41.1%	1.1	2021, 2024
Finland FIN	41%	1.96	2010, 2024
Norway NOR	39.6%	1.67	2011, 2024
Belarus BLR	38%	-1.23	2019, 2024
Germany DEU	37.3%	1.5	2011, 2024
Austria AUT	36.3%	1.35	2011, 2024
France FRA	35.5%	1.15	2015, 2024
Japan JPN	34.5%	1.33	2015, 2024
Bermuda BMU	34.1%	0.629	2016, 2024
Belgium BEL	34%	1.24	2011, 2024
Luxembourg LUX	33.3%	1.84	2011, 2024
Slovenia SVN	32.6%	0.798	2015, 2024
Czechia CZE	32.5%	1.23	2011, 2024
Hungary HUN	32.1%	0.335	2011, 2024
Korea, Rep. KOR	31.8%	1.01	2020, 2024

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2022). Database on Household Size and Composition 2022.
Kaufmann, D. and A. Kraay, Worldwide Governance Indicators, World Bank

Sources

One-person households

Share of one-person households

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division · via Our World in Data · CC BY 3.0 IGO · updated irregular (2017, 2019 and 2022 editions)

Households of one person, from the same UN collection as the single-parent share and with the same limits: one to three readings per country, from sources that sort households differently, and few after 2019. It rises with age and with income, and falls with family size. That is three different things in one number. No "better" direction is set.

Regulatory quality

Regulatory Quality (estimate)

World Bank · CC BY 4.0 · updated annual

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 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 One-person households and Regulatory quality

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that One-person households changes Regulatory quality, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.