Albania vs Australia: Forestry, Recurrent (central government expenditure) — Value Standard
Forestry, Recurrent (central government expenditure) — Value Standard over time
- Albania
- Australia
How they compare
Albania currently reports 740.75 million SLC against 478 million SLC in Australia, a difference of 262.75 million SLC.
That makes Albania's figure about 1.5 times Australia's.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Albania has been ahead every year.
Albania ranks 19th and Australia ranks 21st of 49 countries.
Albania has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Albania | Australia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 576.88 million SLC | 12.83 million SLC | 564.04 million SLC | Albania |
| 2020s | 682.44 million SLC | 322 million SLC | 360.44 million SLC | Albania |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher forestry, recurrent (central government expenditure) — value standard, Albania or Australia?
- Albania, at 740.75 million SLC against 478 million SLC in Australia as of 2022.
- What is the difference in forestry, recurrent (central government expenditure) — value standard between Albania and Australia?
- 262.75 million SLC, with Albania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Albania and Australia?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2022.
- How do Albania and Australia rank globally for forestry, recurrent (central government expenditure) — value standard?
- Albania ranks 19th and Australia ranks 21st of 49 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Forestry, Recurrent (central government expenditure) — Value Standard Local Currency. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Statistics Division of FAO collects annually data on Government Expenditure on Agriculture through a questionnaire, which was developed in partnership with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF is the responsible institution for the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) methodology and annually collects GFS data, including Expenditure by Functions of Government (COFOG). The Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) is an international classification developed by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and published by the United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD), with the aim of categorise governments' functions according to their purposes. The FAO questionnaire aligns with Table 7 of the IMF GFS questionnaire, replicates the relevant aggregates and drills down to request additional detail related to Agriculture. The FAO dataset consists of a time series, from 2001 onwards, of Total Government Expenditure and expenditure in: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, along with its three disaggregated subsectors of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; and Environmental Protection. In addition, expenditure in each detailed function are further disaggregated into Recurrent and Capital expenditure. Additional indicators include the Agriculture Share of Government Expenditure, and the Agriculture Orientation Index (ratio between the Agriculture Share of Government Expenditure and the Agriculture Value Added as Share of GDP). Data are reported for the highest level of government available (Consolidated general government, consolidated central government or budgetary central government) and are available for about 100 countries on a regular basis.