Hungary vs Kazakhstan: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (general)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (general) over time
- Hungary
- Kazakhstan
How they compare
Hungary currently reports 48.35 million USD against 41.55 million USD in Kazakhstan, a difference of 6.8 million USD.
That makes Hungary's figure about 1.2 times Kazakhstan's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 7 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Kazakhstan ahead.
Hungary ranks 17th and Kazakhstan ranks 19th of 43 countries.
Kazakhstan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hungary | Kazakhstan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 38.81 million USD | 88.09 million USD | 49.28 million USD | Kazakhstan |
| 2010s | 45.27 million USD | 69.22 million USD | 23.94 million USD | Kazakhstan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (general), Hungary or Kazakhstan?
- Hungary, at 48.35 million USD against 41.55 million USD in Kazakhstan as of 2023.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (general) between Hungary and Kazakhstan?
- 6.8 million USD, with Hungary ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hungary and Kazakhstan?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2015.
- How do Hungary and Kazakhstan rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (general)?
- Hungary ranks 17th and Kazakhstan ranks 19th of 43 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (general government expenditure) — Value US$, 2015 prices. 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.