Papua New Guinea vs Trinidad and Tobago: Inequality in per capita calorie intake
Papua New Guinea
0.27
in 2020
Trinidad and Tobago
0.27
in 2020
Papua New Guinea rank
77th
Trinidad and Tobago rank
77th
Inequality in per capita calorie intake over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Trinidad and Tobago
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 0.27 against 0.27 in Trinidad and Tobago, a difference of 0.
Across all 21 years both countries report, Trinidad and Tobago has been ahead every year.
Papua New Guinea ranks 77th and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 77th of 185 countries.
Trinidad and Tobago has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Trinidad and Tobago | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.263 | 0.27 | 0.007 | Trinidad and Tobago |
| 2010s | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0 | — |
| 2020s | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher inequality in per capita calorie intake, Papua New Guinea or Trinidad and Tobago?
- Papua New Guinea, at 0.27 against 0.27 in Trinidad and Tobago as of 2020.
- What is the difference in inequality in per capita calorie intake between Papua New Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 0, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2020.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for inequality in per capita calorie intake?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 77th and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 77th 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.