From worldbank:
Latin America has surpassed 100% mobile phone penetration. On average, there are 107 mobile phones per 100 people across the region.
However, this doesn’t mean everyone has a phone or that there’s is connectivity everywhere. According to data from Informa, many people in urban…
This is a fascinating statistic. I should point out that there are a few countries in Africa that are near or past 1:1 cell phone-to-people ratio (though, obviously, that doesn’t mean everyone has a cell phone). More evidence of an interesting convergence across the “developed” and “third” worlds.
There’s an interesting dimension to this about the future of the “third world” and potential advantages—in the long run. Because many countries (particularly in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia) lagged behind the “developed” world for so long, they are now not “catching up” but rather “leapfrogging” into the future.
For example, the explosion in cell phone use in Latin America, Africa, and South Asia is in large part a result of bypassing traditional landline telephones. It also means that much of the cell phone infrastructure of the “third world” is built around G3 or G4 cell phone towers, since the earlier ones simply weren’t built.
What this means is that Africa, Latin America, and South Asia is moving rapidly into the 21st century with much more modern technologies at the core of their infrastructure. The dual problems of path dependence and the sheer cost of upgrading may become serious constraints for “first world” countries in the medium to long range.
The next 100 years should be very interesting, indeed.
From newyorker:
New York City has a problem with income inequality. And it’s getting worse—the top of the spectrum is gaining and the bottom is losing. Along individual subway lines, earnings range from poverty to considerable wealth. The interactive infographic here charts these shifts, using data on median household income, from the U.S. Census Bureau, for census tracts with subway stations: http://nyr.kr/11mEy8m
This is a really great way to map out inequality in an area. I’d love to see it done elsewhere (say, along a major US interstate).
From worldbank:
As a country’s GDP per capita increases, how do internet penetration rates change?
Ramiro Gómez, a Berlin based freelance software developer created a data visualization to show the percentage of Internet users in relation to the GDP per capita for countries from 1990 to 2011.
Get the data from the World Development Indicators.
Source: Visual.ly
From worldbank:
Remittances – money sent home by migrants to family and friends – soared to record levels last year. Officially recorded remittances reached $500bn in one year, but we estimate that the true figure, including unrecorded and informal channels, may be even higher.
The Guardian has put together an interactive map using World Bank Migration and Remittance data to show how much money is sent from one country to another. India, shown below, is the greatest recipient of remittances.
Click here for the full interactive feature: http://bit.ly/U9c4PO
From pritheworld:
What makes the breast cancer rate so high in Uruguay, but so low in Bolivia?
Wow. That is a fascinating question!
Ah, but what’s the R-square?
Via worldbank:
The folks at The Economist have taken data from the 2013 Doing Business Report to both highlight the most improved countries, and to combine it with the data behind Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index Ranking.
Via worldbank:
This interactive shows what Uganda exported in 2009. Find out about trade flow of other countries in The Observatory of Economic Complexity. It includes a series of interactive data visualizations of trade and export data from sources including UN Comtrade. The source code for the visualizations is available on github and you can get the data via their API.
Wow.
From afrographique:
An infographic of the largest African economies by GDP. Data from the World Bank 2005-2009.
Thanks, dieyounglivefast!
U.S. defense expenditure, in billions of inflation-adjusted dollars since 1980. It’s much higher now than during Reagan’s cold-war buildup.
(From Mother Jones, using Congressional Budget Office data. More charts there.)
An interesting, and powerful chart. But how would this look if we used spending as a percentage of GDP (which has also increased since 1980)? The underlying fact is that we still spend about the same as we did when we faced another rival superpower. But by what proportion?
I am happy to answer some of your questions (and maybe a few you didn’t ask). The post-9/11 average for base defense spending is about 4 percent of GDP, roughly the post-WWII average. Fifty years ago, defense spending made up around half (48 percent) of total expenditures, while entitlement spending accounted for about 25 percent. Next year entitlements will be 60 percent of the total budget and defense will be less than 20.
This is a great example of how better numbers are often, well, better. The chart above shows defense spending as increasing about 60% from 9/11 to 2010 (from about $400 to $700). If dieyounglivefast is right (and I believe he is), then defense spending has actually decreased about 40% (from 48% of spending to about 20% of spending). What this also means is that military spending has increased, in party because total government spending has increased. The previous graph did not convey this.
From adam-wola:
U.S. defense expenditure, in billions of inflation-adjusted dollars since 1980. It’s much higher now than during Reagan’s cold-war buildup.
(From Mother Jones, using Congressional Budget Office data. More charts there.)
An interesting, and powerful chart. But how would this look if we used spending as a percentage of GDP (which has also increased since 1980)? The underlying fact is that we still spend about the same as we did when we faced another rival superpower. But by what proportion?