Municipalities in Palencia province by gini index

Name: Municipalities in Palencia province by gini index, 2017
Creator: Instituto Nacional de Estadística
License: INE reuse terms (attribution required)

Población de Campos had the highest gini index of 122 municipalities in 2017, at 36.9 index. Dehesa de Montejo had the lowest, at 21.7 index. The median was 28.4 index and the figure for Palencia province was 29.3 index. Source: the Instituto Nacional de Estadística.

Highest36.9Población de Campos

Lowest21.7Dehesa de Montejo

Median28.4122 municipalities

Palencia province29.3History

Top 40 municipalities, 2017

CSV Chart (SVG)

index. Source: INE. Retrieved 2026-10-07.

Full ranking

Rank	Municipalities	2017 index	Change on 2016
1	Población de Campos	36.9	+4.3
2	Valle del Retortillo	36.3	-1.5
3	Brañosera	36	-4
4	Loma de Ucieza	35.6	+5.1
5	Vertavillo	35.3	-0.5
6	Fuentes de Nava	34.9	+2.2
7	Espinosa de Cerrato	34.4	+6.2
8	Villaluenga de la Vega	33.9	+0.7
9	Lantadilla	33.8	-1.2
10	Villamartín de Campos	33.1	+1.4
11	Prádanos de Ojeda	33	+2.9
12	Meneses de Campos	32.9	-0.9
13	Tabanera de Cerrato	32.8	-0.2
14	Quintana del Puente	32.5	+0.2
15	Collazos de Boedo	32.4	+5.2
16	Espinosa de Villagonzalo	32.2	+2.6
17	Villodrigo	32	+3.6
18	Husillos	31.9	+0.5
19	Salinas de Pisuerga	31.8	-2.9
20	Saldaña	31.7	-0.9
20	Villarramiel	31.7	-1.7
22	Alar del Rey	31.6	-0.9
22	Bustillo de la Vega	31.6	+0.8
24	Itero de la Vega	31.5	+0.7
25	Abia de las Torres	31	+2.4
26	Frechilla	30.9	+1.7
27	Villamoronta	30.6	-0.4
28	Santervás de la Vega	30.5	+0.8
29	Castrillo de Villavega	30.4	+1
29	Monzón de Campos	30.4	-2.6
31	Poza de la Vega	30.3	+4.2
32	Cervatos de la Cueza	30.2	+1.8
33	Autillo de Campos	30.1	+3.3
33	Pedrosa de la Vega	30.1	-0.2
35	La Vid de Ojeda	30	+3.9
35	Palencia	30	-0.7
35	Villalcázar de Sirga	30	+2.3
38	Olmos de Ojeda	29.9	+3
38	Villaturde	29.9	+1.7
40	Castrillo de Don Juan	29.8	-1.5
40	Villerías de Campos	29.8	n/a
42	La Pernía	29.7	+2.3
42	Osorno la Mayor	29.7	-0.6
42	Paredes de Nava	29.7	+0.3
42	Piña de Campos	29.7	-1.8
42	Población de Cerrato	29.7	+1
47	Carrión de los Condes	29.5	-0.3
47	Herrera de Pisuerga	29.5	-1.5
47	Villota del Páramo	29.5	+2.8
50	La Serna	29.4	n/a
51	Cervera de Pisuerga	29.3	-0.6
51	La Puebla de Valdavia	29.3	-0.7
51	Quintanilla de Onsoña	29.3	+0.9
54	Castromocho	29.2	-1.2
54	Villalba de Guardo	29.2	+0.5
56	Congosto de Valdavia	28.9	-0.4
56	Villoldo	28.9	0
58	Antigüedad	28.8	-0.1
58	Magaz de Pisuerga	28.8	-1.8
60	Villaherreros	28.5	+0.7
61	Herrera de Valdecañas	28.4	+1.3
61	Melgar de Yuso	28.4	-1.5
61	Pomar de Valdivia	28.4	-0.7
61	Torquemada	28.4	-1.8
65	Amusco	28.3	-0.8
66	Velilla del Río Carrión	28.2	-0.6
67	Fresno del Río	28.1	-1.4
68	Cevico Navero	28	-1.9
69	Barruelo de Santullán	27.9	-0.4
69	Boadilla de Rioseco	27.9	+2.8
69	Guardo	27.9	-1.1
69	Páramo de Boedo	27.9	n/a
69	San Cebrián de Mudá	27.9	+0.1
74	Buenavista de Valdavia	27.8	-4.5
75	Pino del Río	27.7	-0.1
75	San Cebrián de Campos	27.7	-0.7
77	Cevico de la Torre	27.6	+3.4
77	Palenzuela	27.6	-2.9
77	Revenga de Campos	27.6	-2.1
80	Fuentes de Valdepero	27.5	-0.7
80	Grijota	27.5	-0.5
80	Villameriel	27.5	-2.6
83	Mazuecos de Valdeginate	27.3	n/a
84	Tariego de Cerrato	27.2	+1
85	Aguilar de Campoo	27.1	-0.6
85	Astudillo	27.1	+0.7
85	Villaviudas	27.1	-0.6
88	Santa Cecilia del Alcor	27	+1.3
89	Baltanás	26.9	+0.8
89	Renedo de la Vega	26.9	-2.3
91	Frómista	26.8	-0.1
91	Respenda de la Peña	26.8	+0.3
91	Ribas de Campos	26.8	+1.8
91	Soto de Cerrato	26.8	+2.7
95	Cobos de Cerrato	26.5	-0.8
95	Sotobañado y Priorato	26.5	-3.3
97	Villarrabé	26.4	+0.9
98	Autilla del Pino	26.3	+0.9
98	Santibáñez de la Peña	26.3	+0.5
100	Becerril de Campos	26.2	-0.4
100	Santoyo	26.2	+0.5
102	Cisneros	26.1	+0.1
102	Hontoria de Cerrato	26.1	-1.3
104	Mantinos	25.9	-0.6
104	Villamediana	25.9	-0.9
106	Mazariegos	25.8	+1.7
106	Villalobón	25.8	-1.4
106	Villasarracino	25.8	+1.1
109	Boadilla del Camino	25.7	+0.7
110	Villada	25.6	-1.1
110	Villamuriel de Cerrato	25.6	-0.6
112	Ampudia	25.5	-1.3
112	Dueñas	25.5	-0.4
114	Castrillo de Onielo	25.3	-1.3
115	Villaumbrales	25.2	-0.9
116	Venta de Baños	25	-0.8
117	Báscones de Ojeda	24.9	-0.5
117	Calzada de los Molinos	24.9	-4.8
119	Hornillos de Cerrato	23.7	-1.8
120	Castrejón de la Peña	22.9	-1.4
121	Lagartos	22.4	-2.3
122	Dehesa de Montejo	21.7	-1

Other periods

About this ranking

Income inequality on a 0 to 100 scale, where 0 is perfect equality.

Eurostat, equivalised disposable income after social transfers (EU-SILC), for the EU and its countries. For other countries use gini_index_world_bank, which is measured on a different basis.

Every value in the ranking comes from the same publisher and the same period, so the municipalities are compared on one definition. 4 municipalities with data in other periods have no value for 2017 and are left out rather than filled from another source. Equal values share a rank.

How to cite

Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Atlas de distribución de renta de los hogares: índice de Gini, municipios. https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=37708. Retrieved 2026-10-07.

Use this data in your AI agent

Invokely serves this figure to AI assistants through MCP and to code through a REST API, with the source and citation attached. Ask your assistant:

Rank Municipalities in Palencia province by gini index using official data, and cite the source.

rank_places {"indicator":"gini_index","level":"municipality","within":"Palencia","limit":10}
GET https://invokely.ai/api/v1/rank?indicator=gini_index&level=municipality&within=Palencia&limit=10

Connect Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor in one step. The trial answers 25 calls a day without an account.

Questions

Which municipality has the highest gini index?

Población de Campos, with 36.9 index in 2017, according to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística.

Which municipality has the lowest gini index?

Dehesa de Montejo, with 21.7 index in 2017.

Where does this ranking come from?

Every value comes from one source and one period, so the places are comparable: Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Atlas de distribución de renta de los hogares: índice de Gini, municipios. Retrieved 2026-10-07. 4 municipalities have no value for 2017 and are not ranked.