placestats

Public social spending vs. Women's political empowerment

Fades after adjusting for income

Across 42 countries, Public social spending and Women's political empowerment rise and fall together at r = +0.52 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) leaves r = +0.40, which could easily be chance (q = 0.085, allowing for the many pairs tested, and allowing for countries in the same region being alike).

Comparing countries across the middle half of public social spending, 17% to 24.5% of GDP, women's political empowerment is better by 0.0471 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 0.0376 points.

Link before adjusting (r)+0.521p = 0.000 · 42 countries
After adjusting for national income+0.404p = 0.009 · likely range [+0.11, +0.63]
p, allowing for regions0.013standard error 0.095 · 5 regions
Check for luck (q)0.085across 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.

Public social spending · % of GDPlink with income +0.44 · moderate
Women's political empowerment · index (0-1)link with income +0.54 · moderate

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

Every country as a dot

Public social spending · % of GDP →Women's political empowerment · index (0-1) →7.55%31.6%0.5580.954Australia: 17.1% of GDP, 0.906 index (0-1)Austria: 31.6% of GDP, 0.905 index (0-1)Belgium: 28.6% of GDP, 0.952 index (0-1)Bulgaria: 20.5% of GDP, 0.907 index (0-1)Canada: 19.3% of GDP, 0.872 index (0-1)Switzerland: 16% of GDP, 0.93 index (0-1)Chile: 12.9% of GDP, 0.913 index (0-1)Colombia: 14.1% of GDP, 0.777 index (0-1)Costa Rica: 12.6% of GDP, 0.907 index (0-1)Czechia: 22.1% of GDP, 0.93 index (0-1)Germany: 27.9% of GDP, 0.942 index (0-1)Denmark: 26.4% of GDP, 0.954 index (0-1)Spain: 25.9% of GDP, 0.943 index (0-1)Estonia: 17.2% of GDP, 0.941 index (0-1)Finland: 31.4% of GDP, 0.932 index (0-1)France: 30.6% of GDP, 0.929 index (0-1)United Kingdom: 23% of GDP, 0.838 index (0-1)Greece: 23.7% of GDP, 0.896 index (0-1)Croatia: 22.5% of GDP, 0.913 index (0-1)Hungary: 18% of GDP, 0.818 index (0-1)Ireland: 14.4% of GDP, 0.927 index (0-1)Iceland: 19.2% of GDP, 0.883 index (0-1)Israel: 16.3% of GDP, 0.862 index (0-1)Italy: 27.6% of GDP, 0.929 index (0-1)Japan: 24.7% of GDP, 0.844 index (0-1)Korea, Rep.: 15.3% of GDP, 0.878 index (0-1)Lithuania: 16.9% of GDP, 0.926 index (0-1)Luxembourg: 24% of GDP, 0.896 index (0-1)Latvia: 19.7% of GDP, 0.95 index (0-1)Mexico: 10% of GDP, 0.801 index (0-1)Netherlands: 18.9% of GDP, 0.903 index (0-1)Norway: 24.1% of GDP, 0.926 index (0-1)New Zealand: 24.6% of GDP, 0.937 index (0-1)Peru: 7.55% of GDP, 0.775 index (0-1)Poland: 23.1% of GDP, 0.878 index (0-1)Portugal: 24.1% of GDP, 0.811 index (0-1)Romania: 17.6% of GDP, 0.872 index (0-1)Slovak Republic: 19.3% of GDP, 0.878 index (0-1)Slovenia: 23% of GDP, 0.94 index (0-1)Sweden: 26.1% of GDP, 0.923 index (0-1)Turkiye: 10.4% of GDP, 0.558 index (0-1)United States: 19.8% of GDP, 0.829 index (0-1)AUTBELCHLCRIFINFRAIRLMEXPERPRTTUR

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted+0.5210.00042
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted+0.4750.00142
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income+0.4040.00942
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income+0.3760.01642

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: +0.117 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from +0.332 (without TUR) to +0.435 (without PRT). 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: TUR (-0.072).

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+0.47

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+0.44
Middle third14+0.41
Richest third14+0.39

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+0.32

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 = +0.287 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 35years. 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 = +0.186, 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 public social spending moved did not tend to see their women's political empowerment move with it.

Across countries (adjusted)+0.404for comparison
Within countries+0.384each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere+0.186q = 0.115 · 42 countries
Year-on-year changes-0.051q = 0.572

1,288 country-years (one country in one year), 42 countries, 1990–2024, about 31 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 17% for Public social spending, 15% for Women's political empowerment. 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

0.30−0.3-100+10years Women's political empowerment trails Public social spending →lag -10: r = 0.178 (n = 969)lag -9: r = 0.149 (n = 1,005)lag -8: r = 0.147 (n = 1,039)lag -7: r = 0.147 (n = 1,073)lag -6: r = 0.195 (n = 1,107)lag -5: r = 0.238 (n = 1,140)lag -4: r = 0.244 (n = 1,170)lag -3: r = 0.194 (n = 1,199)lag -2: r = 0.193 (n = 1,229)lag -1: r = 0.196 (n = 1,259)lag +0: r = 0.186 (n = 1,288)lag +1: r = 0.195 (n = 1,289)lag +2: r = 0.186 (n = 1,265)lag +3: r = 0.175 (n = 1,231)lag +4: r = 0.166 (n = 1,192)lag +5: r = 0.149 (n = 1,150)lag +6: r = 0.157 (n = 1,108)lag +7: r = 0.155 (n = 1,066)lag +8: r = 0.154 (n = 1,024)lag +9: r = 0.153 (n = 982)lag +10: r = 0.169 (n = 936)

Same year (lag 0): +0.186. 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 (+0.24 at lag -4) is higher than the same-year one by 0.06. 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 GDP
index (0-1)		Years
Austria AUT31.6%0.9052024, 2025
Finland FIN31.4%0.9322024, 2025
France FRA30.6%0.9292024, 2025
Belgium BEL28.6%0.9522024, 2025
Germany DEU27.9%0.9422024, 2025
Italy ITA27.6%0.9292024, 2025
Denmark DNK26.4%0.9542024, 2025
Sweden SWE26.1%0.9232024, 2025
Spain ESP25.9%0.9432024, 2025
Japan JPN24.7%0.8442022, 2025
New Zealand NZL24.6%0.9372022, 2025
Portugal PRT24.1%0.8112024, 2025
Norway NOR24.1%0.9262024, 2025
Luxembourg LUX24%0.8962024, 2025
Greece GRC23.7%0.8962024, 2025

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
Coppedge, M. et al., V-Dem Dataset, Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project

Sources

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.

Women's political empowerment

Women's political empowerment index

V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg · via Our World in Data · CC BY 4.0 · updated annual

Women's civil liberties, their part in civic groups, and their political representation. It is built from its own set of questions, not from the parts of the democracy indices, so it is not tagged as measuring the same thing. Still, read its links with them carefully. Whether women take part in politics is partly built into whether real political participation exists at all. So a strong link with general democracy measures is closer to definitional (true by how the terms are defined) than to a finding about the world.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2021–2025. 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 Public social spending and Women's political empowerment

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

More links with Public social spending or Women's political empowerment