Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Hong Kong, China: Inequality in per capita calorie intake
Bosnia and Herzegovina
0.22
in 2020
Hong Kong, China
0.22
in 2020
Bosnia and Herzegovina rank
133rd
Hong Kong, China rank
133rd
Inequality in per capita calorie intake over time
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Hong Kong, China
How they compare
Bosnia and Herzegovina currently reports 0.22 against 0.22 in Hong Kong, China, a difference of 0.
Across all 21 years both countries report, Hong Kong, China has been ahead every year.
Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 133rd and Hong Kong, China ranks 133rd of 185 countries.
Hong Kong, China has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Hong Kong, China | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.01 | Hong Kong, China |
| 2010s | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.01 | Hong Kong, China |
| 2020s | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher inequality in per capita calorie intake, Bosnia and Herzegovina or Hong Kong, China?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, at 0.22 against 0.22 in Hong Kong, China as of 2020.
- What is the difference in inequality in per capita calorie intake between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Hong Kong, China?
- 0, with Bosnia and Herzegovina ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Hong Kong, China?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2020.
- How do Bosnia and Herzegovina and Hong Kong, China rank globally for inequality in per capita calorie intake?
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ranks 133rd and Hong Kong, China ranks 133rd of 185 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- FAO (2017) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Inequality in per capita calorie intake. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The inequality in dietary calorie intake is measured as the coefficient of variation in energy intake. It represents the spread of intakes around the mean. Higher values represent larger levels of dietary inequality.