Malawi vs Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income): Total fisheries production (metric tons), per unit of GDP

Malawi
0 metric tons per US$ of GDP
in 2024
Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income)
0 metric tons per US$ of GDP
in 2024
Malawi rank
23rd
Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income) rank
22nd

Total fisheries production (metric tons), per unit of GDP over time

  • Malawi
  • Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income)
0000196019922024

How they compare

Malawi currently reports 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP against 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP in Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income), a difference of 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP.

That makes Malawi's figure about 3.6 times Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income)'s.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 45 shared years of data; in 1980 it was Malawi ahead.

Malawi ranks 23rd and Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income) ranks 22nd of 211 countries.

Malawi has averaged higher in every one of the 5 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Malawi Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income) Difference Ahead
1980s 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP Malawi
1990s 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP Malawi
2000s 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP Malawi
2010s 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP Malawi
2020s 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP Malawi

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher total fisheries production (metric tons), per unit of gdp, Malawi or Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income)?
Malawi, at 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP against 0 metric tons per US$ of GDP in Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income) as of 2024.
What is the difference in total fisheries production (metric tons), per unit of gdp between Malawi and Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income)?
0 metric tons per US$ of GDP, with Malawi ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Malawi and Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income)?
45 years are reported by both, from 1980 to 2024.
How do Malawi and Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income) rank globally for total fisheries production (metric tons), per unit of gdp?
Malawi ranks 23rd and Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income) ranks 22nd of 211 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Total fisheries production (metric tons), per unit of GDP. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Malawi vs Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income): Total fisheries production (metric tons), per unit of GDP. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 17 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/total-fisheries-production-metric-tons-per-unit-of-gdp/malawi/sub-saharan-africa-excluding-high-income/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/total-fisheries-production-metric-tons-per-unit-of-gdp/malawi/sub-saharan-africa-excluding-high-income/">Malawi vs Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income): Total fisheries production (metric tons), per unit of GDP</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Total fisheries production (metric tons), per unit of GDP
Unit
metric tons per US$ of GDP
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
259 places, 14,318 data points, 1960–2024
Last refreshed

Total fisheries production (metric tons) divided by GDP (current US$), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.