## _wp1436

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp1436](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/_wp1436.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/_wp1436.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/_wp1436.pdf.json)

---

### II. Defining financial inclusion and its dimensions
- Financial inclusion: an economic state where individuals and firms are not denied access to basic financial services based on motivations other than efficiency criteria.
- World Bank (2014) taxonomy: four major forms of financial exclusion — voluntary and involuntary exclusion (two subtypes of involuntary).
- Practical policy consensus: financial inclusion encompasses three main dimensions:
  - Outreach (physical ability to reach a point of service).
  - Usage (use of financial services).
  - Quality (extent to which services address consumer needs) — not used in the index due to scarce data.
- Key data point: of the 2.5 billion individuals excluded worldwide, 20 percent cite distance to a point of financial service as main reason for not having an account.

### III. Variables selection (variables used and data sources)
- Outreach proxies (geographic penetration indicators):
  - Number of ATMs per 1,000 km square.
  - Number of branches of ODCs per 1,000 km square.
  - Data source: IMF Financial Access Survey (FAS); land mass from World Bank WDI.
  - ATMs and branches refer to physical points offered by other depository corporations (ODCs).
- Usage proxies:
  - Total number of resident household depositors with ODCs per 1,000 adults.
  - Total number of resident household borrowers with ODCs per 1,000 adults.
  - Definitions:
    - Household depositors: households with at least one deposit account (includes transferable, sight, savings, fixed-term deposits, and certain liabilities of money-market funds; deposits with restrictions on third-party transferability included).
    - Household borrowers: households with at least one loan account (mortgage loans, consumer loans, hire-purchase credit, financial leases, securities repurchase agreements, etc.).
- Quality dimension: not included in computation due to scarce data.
- Sample size by year when all four variables are available:
  - 2009: 23 countries
  - 2010: 26 countries
  - 2011: 28 countries
  - 2012: 31 countries

### IV. Computation of the index — methodology overview
- Overall five-step sequence:
  1. Normalization of variables.
  2. Statistical identification of dimensions via factor analysis (FA).
  3. Use statistical properties to assign weights to variables and sub-indices.
  4. Compute dimensional indices using a weighted geometric mean.
  5. Compute composite index using a weighted geometric mean.
- Normalization:
  - Method: distance to a reference (reference = maximum value of variable across countries).
  - Normalized variable bounded between 0 and 1; leader gets score of 1.
  - Normalized value = x_ic / max_i (with x_ic raw value and max_i maximum across countries).
- Statistical identification of dimensions:
  - Method: Factor analysis (principal components; varimax rotation).
  - Tests on covariance matrix: Bartlett’s spherical test and tests that covariance matrix is diagonal — all tests reject null (Prob > chi2 = 0.00 for all year/test combinations reported).
  - FA result: two factors each year; variables group into two factors matching theoretical outreach and usage dimensions.
  - Rotated factor loadings (2012 sample shown):
    - # of resident household depositors with ODCs per 1000 adults: Factor 1 = 0.0772; Factor 2 = 0.9465; Uniqueness = 0.0982
    - # of resident household borrowers from ODCs per 1000 adults: Factor 1 = 0.0449; Factor 2 = 0.9466; Uniqueness = 0.1019
    - # of branches of ODCs per 1000 km square: Factor 1 = 0.9811; Factor 2 = 0.0418; Uniqueness = 0.0357
    - # of ATMs per 1000 km square: Factor 1 = 0.9667; Factor 2 = 0.1683; Uniqueness = 0.0720
- Weights assignment (derived from FA: squared factor loadings → proportion of variance explained):
  - Weights assigned to variables by year:
    - 2009: outreach dimension — Number of ODC branches per 1,000 km2 = 51%; Number of ATMs per 1,000 km2 = 49%; usage dimension — Household Depositors per 1,000 adults = 51%; Household Borrowers per 1,000 adults = 49%.
    - 2010: 51%, 49%, 51%, 49%.
    - 2011: 51%, 49%, 50%, 50%.
    - 2012: 51%, 49%, 50%, 50%.
  - Weights assigned to dimensions by year (Dimension 1 = outreach; Dimension 2 = usage):
    - 2009: Dimension 1 = 52%; Dimension 2 = 48%; Total = 100%
    - 2010: Dimension 1 = 51%; Dimension 2 = 49%; Total = 100%
    - 2011: Dimension 1 = 51%; Dimension 2 = 49%; Total = 100%
    - 2012: Dimension 1 = 51%; Dimension 2 = 49%; Total = 100%
- Functional form of aggregator:
  - Aggregator: weighted geometric mean used for dimensional indices and composite index.
  - Rationale: avoids perfect substitutability implied by arithmetic mean; provides elasticity of substitution σ = 1 (non-zero finite substitution).
  - Aggregator preserves scale invariance; marginal and substitution properties described in text.

### V. Results — dimensional and composite index findings (2009–2012)
- General:
  - Index computed for period 2009 to 2012.
  - Country rankings remain largely stable; changes often result from sample composition or changes in underlying variables.
- Dimension 1: Outreach of financial services
  - Increasing polarization over time.
  - Income-group composition of top ten:
    - 2009: high and upper middle income countries accounted for half of top ten.
    - 2012: high and upper middle income countries accounted for eight of top ten.
  - Upper middle income countries often outperform high income in outreach.
  - Consistent top performers (where data available):
    - Mauritius (2012: Dimension 1 = 0.9908484; Dimension 2 = 0.0778325; Composite Index = 0.2856942; Overall rank 5).
    - Maldives (2012: Dimension 1 = 0.9441833; Dimension 2 = 0.3303447; Composite Index = 0.5650625; Overall rank 1).
    - Third ranked country in 2012: West Bank & Gaza (2012: Dimension 1 = 0.3525071; Dimension 2 = 0.1670376; Composite Index = 0.2446848; Overall rank 6).
  - Top-six (2012): Mauritius, Maldives, West Bank & Gaza, Hungary, Thailand, Dominican Republic (all regions represented).
  - Bottom-ranked composition:
    - 2009: six of lowest ten are low or lower middle income.
    - 2012: eight of lowest ten are low or lower middle income.
    - Regional concentration at bottom: African and Middle East & Central Asian countries account for nearly all bottom ten each year.
  - Extreme declines at bottom (2012):
    - Central African Republic index 150 percent lower than Republic of Congo.
    - Chad index 170 percent lower than Republic of Congo.
- Dimension 2: Use of financial services
  - Variables combined: household depositors per 1,000 adults and household borrowers per 1,000 adults.
  - Income-group composition of top ten:
    - 2009: seven of top ten were high or upper middle income.
    - 2011 and 2012: nine of top ten were high or upper middle income.
  - High income countries have a significantly higher average index than upper middle income in usage dimension.
  - Notable top performers: Brunei Darussalam and Thailand consistently rank in top three.
  - Example relative comparison: Brunei index over 30 percent higher than Maldives in 2012.
  - Regional observations:
    - Top ten geographically diverse; Africa notably absent from top lists except Botswana and Mauritius reaching top ten in some years.
    - Bottom concentration: African region increases presence at bottom (2009: six of bottom ten from Africa; 2012: eight of bottom ten).
- Composite index (dimensions combined)
  - Dimension weights (example):
    - 2009: Dimension 1 = .52; Dimension 2 = .48.
    - 2010–2012: .51 and .49.
  - Composite rankings reflect combined dimensional trends.
  - Top-ranked country trends:
    - Increasing presence of high and upper-middle income countries: 2009 = seven of top ten; 2012 = eight of top ten.
    - 2011 and 2012 top three: Maldives, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam (Asia and Pacific region).
    - Example: Maldives index 17 percent higher than Thailand in 2011 and 2012.
  - Bottom-ranked trends:
    - 2010–2012: six of bottom ten are low or lower middle income.
    - 2012 bottom ten: eight of ten from African region.
    - Composite index declines steeply at bottom (2012 comparisons):
      - Central African Republic index 95 percent lower than Republic of Congo (third from bottom).
      - Chad index 160 percent lower than Republic of Congo.

### VI. Concluding remarks and policy/research implications
- Methodological contributions:
  - FA provides less arbitrary identification of dimensions and basis for weight assignment.
  - Weighted geometric mean addresses imperfect substitutability between variables and dimensions (elasticity of substitution σ = 1).
- Operational usefulness:
  - Index is easy to compute from IMF FAS data and can:
    - Assess state of financial inclusion at country, regional, or income-group level.
    - Serve as tool for checking quality of financial inclusion data.
    - Be replicated annually for dynamic monitoring.
    - Be incorporated into IMF bilateral/multilateral surveillance and financial sector surveillance.
- Suggested extensions for future research:
  - Replace household depositors and borrowers variables with corresponding FAS variables on SMEs.
  - Combine household and SME indices to create an aggregated index.
  - Expand coverage to include other financial institutions (e.g., insurance corporations).
  - Incorporate quality-dimension data into index if adequate data become available.

### Appendix: selected country-level results (2009–2012)
- Low income examples
  - Burundi
    - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.019855; Dimension 2 0.0096682; Composite Index 0.0140925; Overall rank 18
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0389336; Dimension 2 0.0182599; Composite Index 0.0268892; Overall rank 23
  - Central African Rep.
    - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.000204; Dimension 2 0.0089671; Composite Index 0.00128; Overall rank 26
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0002357; Dimension 2 0.010449; Composite Index 0.0015044; Overall rank 30
  - Chad
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0001652; Dimension 2 0.0014342; Composite Index 0.0004752; Overall rank 31
  - Maldives
    - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.8638237; Dimension 2 0.3534624; Composite Index 0.5614337; Overall rank 1
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.9441833; Dimension 2 0.3303447; Composite Index 0.5650625; Overall rank 1
- Lower middle and upper middle examples
  - West Bank and Gaza
    - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.3167805; Dimension 2 0.1461074; Composite Index 0.2191041; Overall rank 4
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.3525071; Dimension 2 0.1670376; Composite Index 0.2446848; Overall rank 6
  - Georgia
    - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.1007407; Dimension 2 0.2534444; Composite Index 0.1563449; Overall rank 5
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.1217889; Dimension 2 0.4205616; Composite Index 0.2232124; Overall rank 8
  - Dominican Republic
    - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.2101721; Dimension 2 0.3493366; Composite Index 0.2685208; Overall rank 5
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.2118768; Dimension 2 0.2534247; Composite Index 0.2312593; Overall rank 7
- High income examples
  - Brunei Darussalam
    - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.173824; Dimension 2 0.9417586; Composite Index 0.3887752; Overall rank 1
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.1690544; Dimension 2 1; Composite Index 0.4030946; Overall rank 3
  - Thailand
    - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.2459627; Dimension 2 0.6294311; Composite Index 0.3848343; Overall rank 2
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.2466659; Dimension 2 0.6960515; Composite Index 0.409593; Overall rank 2
  - Mauritius
    - 2009 — Dimension 1 1; Dimension 2 0.0798578; Composite Index 0.2999685; Overall rank 3
    - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.9908484; Dimension 2 0.0778325; Composite Index 0.2856942; Overall rank 5

*Source: IMF working paper content provided in the supplied PDF excerpt.*

### Section IV presents the methodology used to compute the index; Section V summarizes the

### _wp1436 - Section IV presents the methodology used to compute the index; Section V summarizes the

### II. Defining financial inclusion and its dimensions
- Financial inclusion: an economic state where individuals and firms are not denied access to basic financial services based on motivations other than efficiency criteria.
- Four major forms of financial exclusion (World Bank, 2014): voluntary and involuntary exclusion (two subtypes of involuntary).
- Practical policy consensus: financial inclusion encompasses three main dimensions:
  - Outreach (physical ability to reach a point of service).
  - Usage (use of financial services).
  - Quality (extent to which services address consumer needs) — not used in the index due to scarce data.
- Key data point: of the 2.5 billion individuals excluded worldwide, 20 percent cite distance to a point of financial service as main reason for not having an account.

### III. Variables selection (variables used and data sources)
- Outreach proxies (geographic penetration indicators):
  - Number of ATMs per 1,000 km square.
  - Number of branches of ODCs per 1,000 km square.
  - Data source: IMF Financial Access Survey (FAS); land mass from World Bank WDI.
  - ATMs and branches refer to physical points offered by other depository corporations (ODCs).
- Usage proxies:
  - Total number of resident household depositors with ODCs per 1,000 adults.
  - Total number of resident household borrowers with ODCs per 1,000 adults.
  - Definitions:
    - Household depositors: households with at least one deposit account (includes transferable, sight, savings, fixed-term deposits, and certain liabilities of money-market funds; deposits with restrictions on third-party transferability included).
    - Household borrowers: households with at least one loan account (mortgage loans, consumer loans, hire-purchase credit, financial leases, securities repurchase agreements, etc.).
- Quality dimension: not included in computation due to scarce data.
- Sample size by year when all four variables are available:
  - 2009: 23 countries
  - 2010: 26 countries
  - 2011: 28 countries
  - 2012: 31 countries

### IV. Computation of the index — methodology overview
- Overall approach: five-step sequence
  1. Normalization of variables.
  2. Statistical identification of dimensions via factor analysis (FA).
  3. Use statistical properties to assign weights to variables and sub-indices.
  4. Compute dimensional indices using a weighted geometric mean.
  5. Compute composite index using a weighted geometric mean.
- Normalization:
  - Method: distance to a reference (reference = maximum value of variable across countries).
  - Normalized variable bounded between 0 and 1; leader gets score of 1.
  - Formula notation: if x_ic is raw value and max_i is maximum across countries, normalized value = x_ic / max_i (as described in text).
- Statistical identification of dimensions:
  - Method: Factor analysis (principal components; varimax rotation).
  - Tests on covariance matrix:
    - Bartlett’s spherical test and tests that covariance matrix is diagonal — all tests reject null (Prob > chi2 = 0.00 for all year/test combinations reported).
  - FA result: two factors each year; variables group into two factors matching theoretical outreach and usage dimensions.
  - Rotated factor loadings (2012 sample shown):
    - # of resident household depositors with ODCs per 1000 adults: Factor 1 = 0.0772; Factor 2 = 0.9465; Uniqueness = 0.0982
    - # of resident household borrowers from ODCs per 1000 adults: Factor 1 = 0.0449; Factor 2 = 0.9466; Uniqueness = 0.1019
    - # of branches of ODCs per 1000 km square: Factor 1 = 0.9811; Factor 2 = 0.0418; Uniqueness = 0.0357
    - # of ATMs per 1000 km square: Factor 1 = 0.9667; Factor 2 = 0.1683; Uniqueness = 0.0720
  - Similar loadings presented for 2009–2011 (see tables in source).
- Weights assignment (derived from FA: squared factor loadings → proportion of variance explained):
  - Weights assigned to variables by year:
    - 2009: Dimension 1 — Number of ODC branches per 1,000 km2 = 51%; Number of ATMs per 1,000 km2 = 49%; Dimension 2 — Household Depositors per 1,000 adults = 51%; Household Borrowers per 1,000 adults = 49%.
    - 2010: 51%, 49%, 51%, 49%.
    - 2011: 51%, 49%, 50%, 50%.
    - 2012: 51%, 49%, 50%, 50%.
  - Weights assigned to dimensions by year (Dimension 1 = outreach; Dimension 2 = usage):
    - 2009: Dimension 1 = 52%; Dimension 2 = 48%; Total = 100%
    - 2010: 51%; 49%; 100%
    - 2011: 51%; 49%; 100%
    - 2012: 51%; 49%; 100%
- Functional form of aggregator:
  - Aggregator: weighted geometric mean used for dimensional indices and composite index.
  - Reason: avoids perfect substitutability implied by arithmetic mean; provides elasticity of substitution σ = 1 (non-zero finite substitution).
  - Aggregator preserves scale invariance.
  - Marginal and substitution properties derived in text (elasticity of substitution = 1).

### V. Results — dimensional and composite index findings (2009–2012)
- General:
  - Index computed for period 2009 to 2012.
  - Country rankings remain largely stable; changes often result from sample composition or changes in underlying variables.
- Dimension 1: Outreach of financial services
  - Increasing polarization over time.
  - Income-group composition of top ten:
    - 2009: high and upper middle income countries accounted for half of top ten.
    - 2012: high and upper middle income countries accounted for eight of top ten.
  - Upper middle income countries often outperform high income in outreach.
  - Consistent top performers (where data available): Mauritius and the Maldives — indices in 2012: Mauritius = .99; Maldives = .94. Third ranked country in 2012: West Bank & Gaza = .35.
  - Top-six (2012): Mauritius, Maldives, West Bank & Gaza, Hungary, Thailand, Dominican Republic (all regions represented).
  - Bottom-ranked composition:
    - 2009: six of lowest ten are low or lower middle income.
    - 2012: eight of lowest ten are low or lower middle income.
    - Regional concentration at bottom: African and Middle East & Central Asian countries account for nearly all bottom ten each year.
  - Extreme declines at bottom (2012):
    - Central African Republic index 150 percent lower than Republic of Congo.
    - Chad index 170 percent lower than Republic of Congo.
- Dimension 2: Use of financial services
  - Variables combined: household depositors per 1,000 adults and household borrowers per 1,000 adults.
  - Income-group composition of top ten:
    - 2009: seven of top ten were high or upper middle income.
    - 2011 and 2012: nine of top ten were high or upper middle income.
  - High income countries have a significantly higher average index than upper middle income in usage dimension.
  - Notable top performers: Brunei Darussalam and Thailand consistently rank in top three.
  - Example: Brunei index over 30 percent higher than Maldives in 2012 (relative comparison stated in source).
  - Regional observations:
    - Top ten geographically diverse; Africa notably absent from top lists except Botswana and Mauritius reaching top ten in some years.
    - Bottom concentration: African region increases presence at bottom (2009: six of bottom ten from Africa; 2012: eight of bottom ten).
- Composite index (dimensions combined)
  - Dimension weights (example):
    - 2009: Dimension 1 = .52; Dimension 2 = .48.
    - Subsequent years: .51 and .49.
  - Composite rankings reflect combined dimensional trends.
  - Top-ranked country trends:
    - Increasing presence of high and upper-middle income countries: 2009 = seven of top ten; 2012 = eight of top ten.
    - 2011 and 2012 top three: Maldives, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam (Asia and Pacific region).
    - Example: Maldives index 17 percent higher than Thailand in 2011 and 2012.
  - Bottom-ranked trends:
    - 2010–2012: six of bottom ten are low or lower middle income.
    - 2012 bottom ten: eight of ten from African region.
    - Composite index declines steeply at bottom (2012 comparisons):
      - Central African Republic index 95 percent lower than Republic of Congo (third from bottom).
      - Chad index 160 percent lower than Republic of Congo.

### VI. Concluding remarks and policy/research implications
- Methodological contributions:
  - FA provides less arbitrary identification of dimensions and basis for weight assignment.
  - Weighted geometric mean addresses imperfect substitutability between variables and dimensions (elasticity of substitution σ = 1).
- Operational usefulness:
  - Index is easy to compute from IMF FAS data and can:
    - Assess state of financial inclusion at country, regional, or income-group level.
    - Serve as tool for checking quality of financial inclusion data.
    - Be replicated annually for dynamic monitoring.
    - Be incorporated into IMF bilateral/multilateral surveillance and financial sector surveillance.
- Suggested extensions for future research:
  - Replace household depositors and borrowers variables with corresponding FAS variables on SMEs.
  - Combine household and SME indices to create an aggregated index.
  - Expand coverage to include other financial institutions (e.g., insurance corporations).
  - Incorporate quality-dimension data into index if adequate data become available.

*Source: IMF working paper content provided in the supplied PDF excerpt.*

### 5748. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

### _wp1436 - 5748. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

### Appendix: Summary of results — Low income
- Burundi
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.019855; Dimension 2 0.0096682; Composite Index 0.0140925; Overall rank 18
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.02753; Dimension 2 0.0122482; Composite Index 0.0185804; Overall rank 17
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0320389; Dimension 2 0.0130235; Composite Index 0.0207571; Overall rank 21
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0389336; Dimension 2 0.0182599; Composite Index 0.0268892; Overall rank 23

- Central African Rep.
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.000204; Dimension 2 0.0089671; Composite Index 0.00128; Overall rank 26
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0002369; Dimension 2 0.009905; Composite Index 0.0014333; Overall rank 28
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0002357; Dimension 2 0.010449; Composite Index 0.0015044; Overall rank 30

- Chad
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0001652; Dimension 2 0.0014342; Composite Index 0.0004752; Overall rank 31

- Comoros
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.1970154; Dimension 2 0.0567047; Composite Index 0.1080678; Overall rank 15
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.1995303; Dimension 2 0.0660559; Composite Index 0.1162285; Overall rank 16

- Madagascar
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0037234; Dimension 2 0.0022356; Composite Index 0.0029201; Overall rank 21
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0044028; Dimension 2 0.0029981; Composite Index 0.0036535; Overall rank 23
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0056773; Dimension 2 0.0029076; Composite Index 0.0041117; Overall rank 26
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0063214; Dimension 2 0.0027567; Composite Index 0.0042133; Overall rank 28

- Malawi
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0152136; Dimension 2 0.0340139; Composite Index 0.02232; Overall rank 15
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0187933; Dimension 2 0.0300343; Composite Index 0.0235966; Overall rank 16

- Myanmar
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0018125; Dimension 2 0.0692214; Composite Index 0.0107553; Overall rank 27

- Tajikistan
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0109136; Dimension 2 0.053863; Composite Index 0.0233486; Overall rank 14
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0122772; Dimension 2 0.0634058; Composite Index 0.0272423; Overall rank 15
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0149214; Dimension 2 0.0724011; Composite Index 0.0319563; Overall rank 20
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0172723; Dimension 2 0.0948458; Composite Index 0.0397135; Overall rank 20

### Appendix: Summary of results — Lower middle income
- Congo, Republic of
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.000765; Dimension 2 0.009532; Composite Index 0.0025442; Overall rank 22
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0009988; Dimension 2 0.0108651; Composite Index 0.0031818; Overall rank 25
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0012054; Dimension 2 0.0121645; Composite Index 0.0036748; Overall rank 27
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0013205; Dimension 2 0.0126972; Composite Index 0.0039927; Overall rank 29

- Côte d'Ivoire
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0121713; Dimension 2 0.0229356; Composite Index 0.0165547; Overall rank 19

- Georgia
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.1007407; Dimension 2 0.2534444; Composite Index 0.1563449; Overall rank 5
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.1017967; Dimension 2 0.3074795; Composite Index 0.1740974; Overall rank 6
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.1043861; Dimension 2 0.3747618; Composite Index 0.1933342; Overall rank 8
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.1217889; Dimension 2 0.4205616; Composite Index 0.2232124; Overall rank 8

- Kiribati
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.038935; Dimension 2 0.0356631; Composite Index 0.0373215; Overall rank 19
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.037731; Dimension 2 0.0365288; Composite Index 0.0371384; Overall rank 21

- Moldova
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.1021391; Dimension 2 0.1642403; Composite Index 0.1280753; Overall rank 6
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.1038241; Dimension 2 0.1654449; Composite Index 0.1301765; Overall rank 8
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.1090913; Dimension 2 0.1556928; Composite Index 0.1295021; Overall rank 10
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.1113026; Dimension 2 0.1606109; Composite Index 0.1331572; Overall rank 14

- Pakistan
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0621575; Dimension 2 0.01845; Composite Index 0.0348497; Overall rank 13
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0642475; Dimension 2 0.020276; Composite Index 0.0367032; Overall rank 14
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0666457; Dimension 2 0.022324; Composite Index 0.039331; Overall rank 18
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0711895; Dimension 2 0.0242508; Composite Index 0.0420518; Overall rank 19

- Samoa
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0669007; Dimension 2 0.1368419; Composite Index 0.0940777; Overall rank 11
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0690066; Dimension 2 0.1481718; Composite Index 0.1000003; Overall rank 12
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.056805; Dimension 2 0.1753752; Composite Index 0.0978261; Overall rank 16
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.057538; Dimension 2 0.2131195; Composite Index 0.1091313; Overall rank 17

- Syrian Arab Republic
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0265318; Dimension 2 0.0001611; Composite Index 0.0023325; Overall rank 23
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0280215; Dimension 2 0.0004142; Composite Index 0.0036222; Overall rank 26

- West Bank and Gaza
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.3167805; Dimension 2 0.1461074; Composite Index 0.2191041; Overall rank 4
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.3203148; Dimension 2 0.166724; Composite Index 0.2332986; Overall rank 5
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.334919; Dimension 2 0.1730587; Composite Index 0.243599; Overall rank 6
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.3525071; Dimension 2 0.1670376; Composite Index 0.2446848; Overall rank 6

### Appendix: Summary of results — Upper income
- Azerbaijan, Rep. of
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0937083; Dimension 2 0.1070518; Composite Index 0.0998438; Overall rank 8
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0962156; Dimension 2 0.1290844; Composite Index 0.1109694; Overall rank 11
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0990355; Dimension 2 0.1595487; Composite Index 0.1246385; Overall rank 12
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0979282; Dimension 2 0.1885883; Composite Index 0.1349082; Overall rank 13

- Botswana
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0035135; Dimension 2 0.2960986; Composite Index 0.0306986; Overall rank 22

- Colombia
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0470802; Dimension 2 0.3678128; Composite Index 0.1253584; Overall rank 7
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0506416; Dimension 2 0.3770014; Composite Index 0.1341976; Overall rank 7
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0486352; Dimension 2 0.3765268; Composite Index 0.1304779; Overall rank 9
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0515307; Dimension 2 0.3785967; Composite Index 0.1366047; Overall rank 12

- Dominican Republic
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.2101721; Dimension 2 0.3493366; Composite Index 0.2685208; Overall rank 5
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.2118768; Dimension 2 0.2534247; Composite Index 0.2312593; Overall rank 7

- Libya
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0011527; Dimension 2 0.2424735; Composite Index 0.0147347; Overall rank 17
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0011257; Dimension 2 0.2594539; Composite Index 0.0157901; Overall rank 20
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.001083; Dimension 2 0.2638124; Composite Index 0.0153263; Overall rank 24

- Maldives
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.8638237; Dimension 2 0.3534624; Composite Index 0.5614337; Overall rank 1
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.9441833; Dimension 2 0.3303447; Composite Index 0.5650625; Overall rank 1

- Mauritius
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 1; Dimension 2 0.0798578; Composite Index 0.2999685; Overall rank 3
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 1; Dimension 2 0.0867039; Composite Index 0.3051161; Overall rank 3
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 1; Dimension 2 0.0867712; Composite Index 0.3076822; Overall rank 4
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.9908484; Dimension 2 0.0778325; Composite Index 0.2856942; Overall rank 5

- Mexico
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0818824; Dimension 2 0.1499171; Composite Index 0.1096077; Overall rank 14
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0855362; Dimension 2 0.2454015; Composite Index 0.1431893; Overall rank 11

- Namibia
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0019029; Dimension 2 0.0971556; Composite Index 0.0123912; Overall rank 19
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0017836; Dimension 2 0.100154; Composite Index 0.0126048; Overall rank 21
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0021726; Dimension 2 0.1812316; Composite Index 0.018339; Overall rank 23
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0020911; Dimension 2 0.2312989; Composite Index 0.0208686; Overall rank 25

- Peru
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.037907; Dimension 2 0.2679385; Composite Index 0.096233; Overall rank 10
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0456636; Dimension 2 0.306407; Composite Index 0.1150562; Overall rank 10
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0541359; Dimension 2 0.3250057; Composite Index 0.1284753; Overall rank 11
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0690538; Dimension 2 0.3415529; Composite Index 0.150863; Overall rank 10

- Serbia, Republic of
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.2319323; Dimension 2 0.0008636; Composite Index 0.0161502; Overall rank 16
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.221067; Dimension 2 0.0012011; Composite Index 0.0175787; Overall rank 18
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.2053204; Dimension 2 0.001711; Composite Index 0.0204122; Overall rank 22
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.191138; Dimension 2 0.0021773; Composite Index 0.0214438; Overall rank 24

- Thailand
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.2459627; Dimension 2 0.6294311; Composite Index 0.3848343; Overall rank 2
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.2456978; Dimension 2 0.6767339; Composite Index 0.4017998; Overall rank 1
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.2428796; Dimension 2 0.6946368; Composite Index 0.4031285; Overall rank 2
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.2466659; Dimension 2 0.6960515; Composite Index 0.409593; Overall rank 2

- Venezuela, Rep. Bol.
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0384108; Dimension 2 0.2813257; Composite Index 0.0991777; Overall rank 9
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0427582; Dimension 2 0.3294855; Composite Index 0.1152204; Overall rank 9
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0426406; Dimension 2 0.3538377; Composite Index 0.118288; Overall rank 13
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0424435; Dimension 2 0.3594702; Composite Index 0.1206128; Overall rank 15

### Appendix: Summary of results — High income
- Brunei Darussalam
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.173824; Dimension 2 0.9417586; Composite Index 0.3887752; Overall rank 1
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.1676521; Dimension 2 0.9292914; Composite Index 0.3850021; Overall rank 2
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.1615722; Dimension 2 0.9276889; Composite Index 0.3752848; Overall rank 3
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.1690544; Dimension 2 1; Composite Index 0.4030946; Overall rank 3

- Equatorial Guinea
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0035105; Dimension 2 0.0273052; Composite Index 0.0093277; Overall rank 20
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0041297; Dimension 2 0.0302017; Composite Index 0.0108495; Overall rank 22
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0056426; Dimension 2 0.0316217; Composite Index 0.0129538; Overall rank 25
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0062146; Dimension 2 0.0440148; Composite Index 0.0161818; Overall rank 26

- Estonia
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0802283; Dimension 2 0.7877687; Composite Index 0.2431834; Overall rank 4
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0717511; Dimension 2 0.7528428; Composite Index 0.2228834; Overall rank 7
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0669607; Dimension 2 0.733431; Composite Index 0.2157747; Overall rank 9

- Hungary
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.275229; Dimension 2 0.596806; Composite Index 0.4018059; Overall rank 4

- Saudi Arabia
  - 2009 — Dimension 1 0.0135068; Dimension 2 0.1887249; Composite Index 0.0474406; Overall rank 12
  - 2010 — Dimension 1 0.0138515; Dimension 2 0.2080997; Composite Index 0.0516142; Overall rank 13
  - 2011 — Dimension 1 0.0139777; Dimension 2 0.2119586; Composite Index 0.0518567; Overall rank 17
  - 2012 — Dimension 1 0.0142814; Dimension 2 0.2399552; Composite Index 0.0567271; Overall rank 18

*Source: _wp1436 - 5748. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/_wp1436.pdf_