Inequality in Income Distribution: A Comparison between

Bangladesh, Brazil and the United Kingdom

“There can be no peace as long as there is grinding poverty, social injustice, inequality,
oppression, environmental degradation, and as long as the weak and small continue to be
trodden by the mighty and powerful.”
Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama

1.0 Introduction

Businessdictionary.com defines income as “the flow of cash or cash-equivalents received

from work (wage or salary), capital (interest or profit), or land (rent).” Households
provide firms with the factors of production (land, labour, capital, etc.) and receive
income in return. Income has various forms like rent, salary, wages, interest, profit and
dividend. It is generated and received over a period of time and is therefore different from
the concept of wealth, which is a stock of valuable assets.

Even since prehistoric times income has never been distributed equally among
individuals, households, groups or nations. The graves of farmers buried 7,000 years ago,
in Central Europe reveal hereditary inequality as some (the privileged) were buried with
tools and some without (University of Bristol 2012). In 300 BC, India had an extremely
structured caste system where inequality existed in „privilege‟, „reward‟, „dominance‟ and
„subordination‟ (Mandelbaum 1970). Noah Webster, publisher of the famous dictionary,
professed that “The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in
Rome, one principal cause was, the vast inequality of fortunes.”

Income inequality is the phenomenon in which income is distributed unequally among

individuals, households, groups or among countries. Global income inequality has
climbed gradually since 1820 but its rise since 1980 has been rather sharp (Milanovic
2009).
The IMF acknowledges that inequality is damaging to human progress. It is not enough
anymore just to win in the war against extreme poverty (which the human race is doing),
reducing income inequality and extreme wealth has become equally important (Oxfam
2013).

This paper explores income inequality in three countries. The countries are UK, Brazil
and Bangladesh. While Bangladesh is an Asian Least Developed Country, UK is a
developed European nation and Brazil is a developing Latin American Country.

1.1 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to explore the phenomenon of income inequality that
is affecting economic growth in most countries of the world. The distribution of income
in three countries, UK, Brazil and Bangladesh is to be given special emphasis in an
attempt to understand the causes and effects of income inequality.

To achieve the main objectives the following sub goals have to be satisfied:

i. To understand the level of inequality that exists in the world today

ii. To identify of the methods used to measure income inequality
iii. To understand the causes and effects of income inequality
iv. To describe some methods of resolving the issue.
v. To compare the inequality in income distribution of the three countries
vi. To conclude if the income distribution in Bangladesh is acceptable as per world
standards.

1.2 Methodology

This study will be based on secondary data. A large number of literatures are available on
income inequality. Sources for data will include published articles, conference paper,
books and records available from various sources, which include the internet.

2|P a ge
The CIA Factbook and the site of the World Bank are expected to reveal historical facts
and figures on GINI Index and GNI per Capita of the countries being studied. These tools
are used to measure income inequality

1.3 Limitations

A substantial amount of facts, figures and data are available on global income
distribution. However, there is a dearth of qualitative information on income distribution
in Bangladesh.

This study is based on secondary data. It is mainly because of a lack of time that primary
data could not be incorporated in the report.

The study is also limited to income distribution in three countries Bangladesh, Brazil and
the UK. Again this is due to time factor. The opportunity for adding more countries into
the study remains an attractive proposition.

2.0 Distribution of Income

Income distribution is the way in which the income of the world is divided among nations
and the income of a nation is divided among its population. The distribution of income
within a society is of enormous importance. It affects the bonding of the society and
establishes its poverty level. Income distribution has an effect on economic rate of growth
(societies that are more equal grow faster than unequal ones). Also societies or countries
with greater inequality in income distribution have lower life expectancies.

Inequality is different from poverty, though they are linked. Poverty indicates a
deficiency of funds and the inability to procure the necessities of life such as food, clean
water, shelter, etc. Inequality is the difference in the standard of living between two
persons, groups or countries. Inequality is a relative while poverty is absolute.

Globally income inequality has become a matter of great concern as 20% of the world‟s
richest are now earning around 80% of the total world income and 20% of the poorest are
earning less than 2% of the income.

3|P a ge
Figure 1: Global Income Distribution (Percentage of World Income Held by Each Fifth
of World Population)

Domestic income inequality has also reached dangerous levels in some countries. For
example, in the USA the earnings of CEOs was 275 time the average earning of workers
in 2005.

400
300
200
100
0 Source : Mishel, et. al.
The State of working
America, 2008-09

Figure 2 - Ratio of Average CEO to Average Worker pay in the USA, 1965-2007

4|P a ge
There is ample proof that unequal income distribution hampers economic growth and the
attainment of other social goals. It aggravates ill health and increases mortality. High
inequality is also related to social distrust and failure of the democratic system (World
Bank 2000).

2.1 Measuring Distribution of Income

Various income inequality measures can be used to compare the income distributions
within an economy (country) and among the countries of the world. The most popular
measure of income distribution within a country is the Gini coefficient, while the most
used measure of inter-country measurement is Gross National Income (GNI) per capita.

Measuring income distributions within a country – the Gini coefficient is named after its
developer, Italian statistician and sociologist, Corrado Gini . It is based on the Lorenz
curve that plots cumulative income share on the vertical axis against the distribution of
the population on the horizontal axis. A diagonal line represents perfect equality of
incomes.

Source: http://cyro.cs-
territories.com/asa2_economics/unit6/di
stributionofincome.html
Figure 3: Gini coefficient can be calculated by
dividing the area A by the area OPT

5|P a ge
The Gini coefficient is the ratio of the area that lies between the line of equality and
the Lorenz curve. It can theoretically range from 1 (the most unequal society where a
single person receives 100% of the total income) to 0 (the most equal society where every
person receives the same income). It is sometimes expressed as a percentage ranging
between 0 and 100.

Some other tools for measuring intra-country income inequality are Theil-index, 20-20
Ratio, Decile dispersion ratio Palma Ratio, Hover Index, etc.

GNI per capita is gross national income divided by mid-year population. Gross national
income (GNI) is the all income earned by a country's residents and businesses, no matter
where the person is working or the business is located. GNI per capita is used to compare
mean average incomes between nations.

Figure 4: World Gross National Income Per Capita Map – Year 2010

6|P a ge
The Gross National Income per Capita and Gini Index of some selected countries are
shown below. According to this table the countries of the world can be classified into
four groups. This are:

i. Countries with relatively high-income economies and equal income distribution

like Luxembourg. This is the ideal situation.
ii. Countries with relatively high-income economies but unequal income
distribution, for example USA and Hong Kong. These countries have deep
pockets of poverty in society
iii. Countries with relatively low-income economies but equal income distribution.
An example of this is Cambodia where poverty exists but there is less disparity
iv. Countries with relatively low-income economies and unequal income distribution,
for example Zimbabwe. The worse situation where the low income is enjoyed
only by the lucky few.

Sl. Country GNI/Capita Gini Index Data Year

1 Luxembourg 69,180 26 2005
2 USA 48,640 45 2007
3 Hong Kong 35,710 53.7 2011
4 Hungary 12,980 24.7 2009
5 Turkey 9,980 40.2 2010
6 Namibia 4,370 59.7 2010
7 Sri Lanka 2,260 49 2010
8 Egypt 1,960 30.8 2008
9 Philippines 1,870 44.8 2009
10 Cambodia 690 37.9 2008
11 Uganda 450 44.3 2009
12 Zimbabwe 420 50.1 2006
Source: World Bank & CIA Fact-book

Table 1 - Gross National Income per Capita and Gini Index of Selected Countries

7|P a ge
3.0 Theories on Income Inequality

Command Economies give more emphasis on collective benefits and not on the profit of
individuals. Monetary benefits are distributed jointly to teams or groups thus eliminating
income inequality (Economy Watch 2010). However, command economy is all but
extinct these days as it has proved to be inefficient. The efficiency of the free market with
its „invisible hand‟ has been more acceptable.

However the battle between efficiency and equity still continues. There are various
schools of thought that can help planners and decision makers in this battle. Some of
these are highlighted below:

Marxism suggests that distribution should be based on the individual's needs rather than
other factors.

Meritocracy is a system, in which people are rewarded for their superior talents or
intellect and not because of birth or wealth

Utilitarianism is the belief that any action is justified as long as it maximizes satisfaction
and the greatest happiness of the greatest number of members in society. Utilitarians
preach that all income distribution decisions should be based on this guiding principle.

Classical Liberalism believes in protecting the freedom of the individual by reducing

government control. Liberalism is associated with the maximin criterion a pessimistic
(conservative) decision making rule, which ensures that the worst the decision maker can
do is to achieve the best of the poorest outcomes. Liberals think that governments should
only try to improve the lot of the poorest members of society.

Libertarianism According to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, the basic premise of
libertarianism philosophy is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases
so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and
governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties
for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct
which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it.

Social Justice is based on making certain that individuals fulfill their roles in society and
receive a more equally distributed share from society.

8|P a ge
4.0 Causes, Effects and Ways of Reducing Income Inequality

Understanding cause-and-effect relationships is very important in social research.

Researchers have to comprehend why a phenomenon takes place and what happens as a
result of it. Sometimes it also becomes important to influence these occurrences to reduce
or enhance its consequences.

4.1 The Causes of Income Inequality

Many factors are thought to contribute to the growing rich-poor gap between countries
and even within societies. The most relevant ones include:

The Forces of Demand and Supply – In a free market wages are determined by the supply
and demand for different types of work. In the technology dependent world of today
demand has shifted away from less-educated and less-skilled workers toward workers
with higher education or particular skills. Specialized workers who can produce cars,
smart phones and hospital equipment are receiving much higher pay than the farmer
growing crops in the fields. This results in an ever increasing income gap between more -
and less-educated/skilled workers.

Wealth Concentration - The process by which wealthier households / countries are able to
earn more income from superior factors of production. Those who already hold wealth
have the means to invest in new sources of creating wealth

Globalization - Globalization has increased income inequality in developed nations but reduced the
income gap in the developing countries. Unskilled workers in developed countries are losing
their jobs and becoming poorer as unskilled workers in developing countries are willing
to do the same work for lesser wages.

Brain Drain – The migration of skilled / educated professionals from developing to

developed countries is creating a vacuum in the poorer countries. The professionals
remaining behind are able to demand higher pay. This is putting them on a higher wages
bracket and increasing inequality.

9|P a ge
Household Composition - Single-parent families usually have lower income than families
where both parents are working. Grown children living in joint families may also
contribute to the family income. Thus the number of members working in a household
might also contribute to income inequality.

4.2. Effects of Income Inequality

Slows Economic Growth – There is enough proof to suggest that countries with high
inequality have a lower growth rate. Research by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
indicates that periods of continuous growth is most important for long-run economic
development. It is much easier to initiate growth in an economy than to sustain it. Again
when growth wanes, it is often due to inequality. Latin America has a Gini index of about
50, while emerging Asia has a Gini of about 40. If Latin America could reduce its Gini to
45, its bursts of growth would double (The Economist 2014).

Creates Health and Social Problems – inequality fosters a lack of Social Cohesion
(more distrust, less community involvement, higher crime rate, etc.). In more equal
societies people live longer, are less likely to experience mental illness and use less
illegal drugs.

Cause of Financial Instability - inequality is a prerequisite for manias and bubbles.

Inequality creates classes where the natural trait for each class is to be promoted to a
higher group. Middle income groups envy upper class members and often borrow beyond
their means to enhance their status. Banks also provide them with loans in the hope on
making more and more profit. This creates bubbles which ruin thousands when they
burst.

Generates Political Instability – political conflict often originates from severe social
grievances, including class conflict. In their research „Inequality and the Instability of
Polity and Policy” Dutt and Mitra have clearly shown that inequality is positively
correlated political instability (Dutt and Mitra 2008),

Reduction of distributive efficiency - inequality reduces the sum total of

personal utility due to decreasing marginal utility of wealth. A third car of a rich person

10 | P a g e
provides him much less utility than it would do to a family that has no car. This is an
example of reduced "distributive efficiency" within society. It decreases marginal
utility of wealth.

4.3 Reducing Income Inequality

The European Commission‟s October 2011 “Agenda for Change” proposed that the EU
would focus on “inclusive and sustainable growth”, thereby enabling more people to
benefit from wealth and job creation. However, in reality rich nations have exhibited very
little willingness in the endeavor for a global redistribution of wealth.

Economic choices at national levels have to be taken with consideration of their

distributional impacts. Achieving the equity/growth balance requires a major overhaul of
current decision making.

Traditionally socialist / communist countries exhibit low levels of income inequality. It is

mainly because of government initiatives. Government schemes that may help reduce
economic inequality include:

 Progressive taxation: the very rich are taxed proportionally more than the middle
income citizens. At the same time the concept of negative taxation may be included
whereby the very poor receive subsidy from the government. This may reduce the
amount of income inequality in society if the change in taxation does not cause
changes in income.

 Public education: Training programmes may be introduced to increase the supply of

skilled labor. At the same time, hopefully this will reduce income inequality due to
education differentials.

 Minimum wage legislation: raising the income of the poorest workers (for the ones
that don't lose their jobs due to the minimum wage) may help reduce income
inequality.

 Nationalization or subsidization of products: Utilities like electricity, water and gas

should be under government control at all times. By providing goods and services

11 | P a g e
 that everyone needs, cheaply or freely (such as food, healthcare, and housing),
governments can effectively raise the purchasing capability of its poorest citizens.

 Welfare, In-trade transfers and Workfares: Public aid, aid for work, redistribution in
kind other than cash are all instruments available to the government to bring about
some parity in income distribution.

5.0 Income Distribution in Bangladesh, Brazil and the UK

The United States of America has a GNI per capita (PPP) International $53,960 which
makes it the 17th richest country in the world. However, in distribution of income it is
ranked a poor 41st with a GINI Index of 45. At the same time Bangladesh which has a
GINI of 32.1 has a GNI per capita (PPP) of only $ 2,810. On the face of it, it seems that
there is no correlation between income inequality between countries and the inequality
within a country. The inequalities of income distribution between Bangladesh, Brazil and
the UK is being studied here in an attempt to determine the relationship between them

5.1 Income Distribution in Bangladesh

The growth and development of the Bangladesh economy during the last decade has been
remarkable. The GDP growth has been around 6 percent per year. More than 15 million
Bangladeshis have broken free of the vicious cycle of poverty. Human development, life
expectancy, population growth rate literacy, and per capita food intake have also shown
remarkable improvements.

However, the growth is perilous. Bangladesh is an extremely natural disaster prone area.
A natural disaster of considerable magnitude or global economic debacle may well
increase the size of the population below the poverty line, which at present is
approximately 47 million.

Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It badly lacks in
infrastructure that include electricity, transport, and telecommunication services (The
World Bank). The number of skilled workers are increasing day by day and Bangladesh

12 | P a g e
is now better prepared to handle job opportunities in more technology savvy areas.
Bangladesh has made commendable progress in implementing its Millennium
Development Goals.

Bangladesh is striving to become a middle-income country by 2021. This may bring

about increased inequality in income distribution. The government should be very
cautious on this matter.

Though income inequality in Bangladesh has increased since independence it has never
been extreme. GINI Co-efficient has risen from 25.9 in 1984 to 32.1 in 2010.

Year GINI index Year GINI index

1984 25.9 1996 33.0

1986 26.9 2000 33.5

1989 28.9 2005 33.2

1992 27.6 2010 32.1

Source: The World Bank

Table 2: GINI Index for Bangladesh

At the same time Bangladesh‟s Gross National Income per Capita (PPP) has also grown
from $990 in 2002 to $ 2,810 in 2013

Year GNI/Capita
(PPP)

2002 990

2006 1,350

2010 1,810

2013 2,810

Source: The World Bank

Table 3: GNI / Capita for Bangladesh

13 | P a g e
Some reasons for the income inequality in Bangladesh can be identified as:

i. Dual Structure of the Economy

The majority of the people live in rural areas where there is surplus supply of
labour and an acute lack of opportunities. The urban industrial sector also cannot
absorb any more workers.
ii. Women in the Workforce
Women are joining the workforce these days but this phenomenon is especially
true for the urban sector. In the rural areas a large portion of women are still
engaged in household chores and their families remain poor.
iii. Minorities. Ethnic minorities in Bangladesh like Chakmas, Marmas, Lusais, etc.
are still earning less than average wages for their labours. Also, some professional
groups are suffering due to environmental and other reasons. For example,
depletion of the fish stock in ponds, rivers and even the sea are spelling disaster
for the fishermen in Bangladesh (Haque 2004)

5.2 Income Distribution in Brazil

The largest country in South America, Brazil‟s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2012
was US$ 2.253 trillion. This was in spite of growths of only 2.7% in 2011 and 0.9% in
2012. However, low inflation rates and enhanced social well-being are positive
indications for the country.

In 2009 the poverty level (people living with US$2 per day) in Brazil was 11% while
people living in extreme poverty (with US$1.25 per day) was 2.2%. These two indicators
show drastic fall from 21% and 10% respectively in 2003/2004.

Income inequality creates a serious problem for Brazil‟s economy. The South and
Southeast regions of Brazil enjoy more wealth than the North and Northeast regions. This
is exhibited in health, infant mortality and nutrition. Though the GINI Index of Brazil
was a substantially high 0.519 in 2011 it was the best result the football loving nation
exhibited in 50 years.

The GINI Index and GNI per Capita of Brazil for some selected years are shown below:

14 | P a g e
Year GINI index Year GNI / Capita (PPP)

1999 59.8 1998 8,120

2003 58.8 2002 8,860

2006 56.8 2006 10,920

2009 54.7 2010 13,520

2012 51.9 2014 14,750

Source: The World Bank

Table 4: GINI Index for Brazil Table 5: GNI/ Capita for Brazil

5.3 Income Distribution in the United Kingdom (UK)

The economy of the United Kingdom is made up of the economies of England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland. It is amongst the 10th largest economics of the world and
among 5th largest economics in Europe. However, compared to other developed countries
the UK has a very high level of income inequality. Its income is the most unequal in
Europe (The Equity Trust).

Figure 5: Spread of Incomes in the UK

15 | P a g e
The bottom 10% of the UK population have a net income of £8,628 (on average) while
the top 10% have net incomes of approximately £80,240. As can be seen from the graph
the poorest fifth of UK citizens receive only 8% of the total income and the top fifth have
just less than half (41%).

Figure 6: How is income shared in the UK

In 2010 the GINI Index of UK was 32.3 while its GNI per capita was $35,760 in 2013.

6.0 Conclusion

Compared to the UK, Bangladesh is indeed a poor country. The average income of its
citizens is only about 7.85% that of the citizens of UK. Even in comparison to Brazil
Bangladesh‟s position is very weak. However, Bangladeshis can take pride in the
knowledge that as regards distribution of income they are much in a much better position
than Brazil and even the rest of the world combined. The equality of income distribution
in Bangladesh is slightly better than that of the UK.

16 | P a g e
Figure 7: Lorenz Curve for the World, the UK, Bangladesh and Brazil

However, there is apprehension that with increased development the income inequality in
Bangladesh may also grow. This is an area where the government has to keep a sharp
lookout and take necessary actions in necessary.

17 | P a g e
 APPENDIX I

COUNTRY COMPARISON :: DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY

INCOME - GINI INDEX
D I S T R IB U T I O N
O F FA MI L Y DATE OF
RANK COUNTRY
I N C O ME - G I N I I N FO R MA T I O N
INDEX

1 L es o t ho 6 3 .2 1995

2 S o ut h A fri ca 6 3 .1 2005

3 B o t s w ana 6 3 .0 1993

4 S ierra L eo ne 6 2 .9 1989

5 C ent r a l A fr ica n R ep ubl ic 6 1 .3 1993

6 N a mib i a 5 9 .7 2010

7 H ait i 5 9 .2 2001

8 H o nd ur as 5 7 .7 2007

9 Za mb i a 5 7 .5 2010

10 C o lo mb ia 5 5 .9 2010

11 G uat e ma la 5 5 .1 2007

12 H o ng K o ng 5 3 .7 2011

13 Pa rag uay 5 3 .2 2009

18 | P a g e
14 C hile 5 2 .1 2009

15 Pa na ma 5 1 .9 2 0 1 0 es t .

16 B razil 5 1 .9 2012

17 Pa p ua N ew G ui nea 5 0 .9 1996

18 S w azil a nd 5 0 .4 2001

19 C o s t a R ica 5 0 .3 2009

20 G a mb i a, T he 5 0 .2 1998

21 Zi mb abw e 5 0 .1 2006

22 S ri L anka 4 9 .0 2010

23 E cua do r 4 8 .5 D ec emb er 2 0 1 3

24 Mexi co 4 8 .3 2008

25 Per u 4 8 .1 2010

26 Mad ag as c ar 4 7 .5 2001

27 C hi na 4 7 .3 2013

28 D o mi nic a n R ep ub lic 4 7 .2 2 0 1 0 es t .

29 B o liv ia 4 7 .0 2011

30 E l S alv ado r 4 6 .9 2007

19 | P a g e
31 R w a nd a 4 6 .8 2000

32 S ing a po re 4 6 .3 2013

33 Mal ay s i a 4 6 .2 2009

34 G eo rg ia 4 6 .0 2011

35 S o ut h S uda n 4 6 .0 2 0 1 0 es t .

36 A rg ent i na 4 5 .8 2009

37 Mo za mbi q ue 4 5 .6 2008

38 J a ma ica 4 5 .5 2004

39 B ulg ari a 4 5 .3 2007

40 U rug uay 4 5 .3 2010

41 U nit ed S t at es 4 5 .0 2007

42 P hil ipp i nes 4 4 .8 2009

43 C a mero o n 4 4 .6 2001

44 G uy a na 4 4 .6 2007

45 I ra n 4 4 .5 2006

46 U g a nd a 4 4 .3 2009

47 N ig eri a 4 3 .7 2003

20 | P a g e
48 K eny a 4 2 .5 2 0 0 8 es t .

49 B ur undi 4 2 .4 1998

50 R us s i a 4 2 .0 2012

51 C o t e d'I v o ire 4 1 .5 2008

52 S eneg a l 4 1 .3 2001

53 D j ibo ut i 4 0 .9 2002

54 Mo ro cco 4 0 .9 2 0 0 7 es t .

55 T ur kme nis t a n 4 0 .8 1998

56 N icar ag ua 4 0 .5 2010

57 T ur key 4 0 .2 2010

58 Mal i 4 0 .1 2001

59 T unis ia 4 0 .0 2 0 0 5 es t .

60 J o rda n 3 9 .7 2007

61 B ur ki na Fas o 3 9 .5 2007

62 G ha na 3 9 .4 2 0 0 5 - 06

63 G ui nea 3 9 .4 2007

64 T ha il a nd 3 9 .4 2010

21 | P a g e
65 Macedo nia 3 9 .2 2011

66 Ma ur it a ni a 3 9 .0 2000

67 V ene zuel a 3 9 .0 2011

68 Mal aw i 3 9 .0 2004

69 Ma ur it i us 3 9 .0 2 0 0 6 es t .

70 B hut a n 3 8 .7

71 Po rt ug a l 3 8 .5 2007

72 S erbia 3 8 .0 2 0 1 3 es t .

73 C a mbo di a 3 7 .9 2 0 0 8 es t .

74 Y e me n 3 7 .7 2005

75 I s rael 3 7 .6 2012

76 J apa n 3 7 .6 2008

77 T anza ni a 3 7 .6 2007

78 V iet na m 3 7 .6 2008

79 Mal div es 3 7 .4 2004

80 I nd ia 3 6 .8 2004

81 U zbe kis t a n 3 6 .8 2003

22 | P a g e
82 I ndo nes i a 3 6 .8 2009

83 L ao s 3 6 .7 2008

84 Mo ng o li a 3 6 .5 2008

85 B eni n 3 6 .5 2003

86 N ew Zeal a nd 3 6 .2 1997

87 B o s nia a nd H erzeg o v i na 3 6 .2 2007

88 L it hua ni a 3 5 .5 2009

89 A lg eri a 3 5 .3 1995

90 L at v ia 3 5 .2 2010

91 Mac a u 3 5 .0 2013

92 A lba ni a 3 4 .5 2008

93 G reece 3 4 .3 2 0 1 2 es t .

94 T aiw a n 3 4 .2 2011

95 Po l a nd 3 4 .1 2009

96 N ig er 3 4 .0 2007

97 I rela nd 3 3 .9 2010

98 A zer ba ij a n 3 3 .7 2008

23 | P a g e
99 K y rg y zs t an 3 3 .4 2007

100 Mo ldo v a 3 3 .0 2010

101 E t hio p ia 3 3 .0 2011

102 N epa l 3 2 .8 2010

103 T aj i kis t a n 3 2 .6 2006

104 U nit ed K i ng do m 3 2 .3 2012

105 C a nad a 3 2 .1 2005

106 B ang la des h 3 2 .1 2010

107 S pai n 3 2 .0 2005

108 C ro at i a 3 2 .0 2010

109 I t aly 3 1 .9 2 0 1 2 es t .

110 T i mo r - L es t e 3 1 .9 2 0 0 7 es t .

111 E s t o nia 3 1 .3 2010

112 K o rea, S o ut h 3 1 .1 2 0 1 1 es t .

113 C y prus 3 1 .0 2 0 1 2 es t .

114 A r me ni a 3 0 .9 2008

115 N et he rl a nds 3 0 .9 2007

24 | P a g e
116 E g y pt 3 0 .8 2008

117 Fr a nce 3 0 .6 2011

118 E uro pe a n U nio n 3 0 .6 2 0 1 2 es t .

119 Pa kis t a n 3 0 .6 F Y0 7 / 08

120 A us t r al ia 3 0 .3 2008

121 K o so v o 3 0 .0 F Y0 5 / 06

122 K aza khs t a n 2 8 .9 2011

123 S w it zer la nd 2 8 .7 2 0 1 2 es t .

124 U kr a i ne 2 8 .2 2009

125 B elg i um 2 8 .0 2005

126 I cela nd 2 8 .0 2006

127 R o ma ni a 2 7 .4 2011

128 B elar us 2 7 .2 2008

129 Malt a 2 7 .1 2012

130 G er ma ny 2 7 .0 2006

131 Fi nl a nd 2 6 .8 2008

132 A us t ri a 2 6 .3 2007

25 | P a g e
133 S lo v akia 2 6 .0 2005

134 L uxe mbo urg 2 6 .0 2005

135 N o rw ay 2 5 .0 2008

136 C zec h R ep ubl ic 2 4 .9 2012

137 D enma r k 2 4 .8 2 0 1 1 es t .

138 H ung a ry 2 4 .7 2009

139 Mo nt e neg ro 2 4 .3 2010

140 S lo v eni a 2 3 .7 2012

141 S w eden 2 3 .0 2005

26 | P a g e