Argentina vs Kazakhstan: Net food imports by crop - Rice, broken
Argentina
-1.54 million
in 2015
Kazakhstan
-1.64 million
in 2019
Argentina rank
160th
Kazakhstan rank
161st
Net food imports by crop - Rice, broken over time
- Argentina
- Kazakhstan
How they compare
Argentina currently reports -1.54 million against -1.64 million in Kazakhstan, a difference of 98,110.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 19 shared years of data; in 1995 it was Argentina ahead.
Argentina ranks 160th and Kazakhstan ranks 161st of 167 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Argentina averaged higher in 2 and Kazakhstan in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Argentina | Kazakhstan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | -102,429 | -757,269 | 654,840 | Argentina |
| 2000s | -378,231 | -415,214 | 36,983 | Argentina |
| 2010s | -2.37 million | -326,518 | 2.05 million | Kazakhstan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher net food imports by crop - rice, broken, Argentina or Kazakhstan?
- Argentina, at -1.54 million against -1.64 million in Kazakhstan as of 2015.
- What is the difference in net food imports by crop - rice, broken between Argentina and Kazakhstan?
- 98,110, with Argentina ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Argentina and Kazakhstan?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 1995 to 2013.
- How do Argentina and Kazakhstan rank globally for net food imports by crop - rice, broken?
- Argentina ranks 160th and Kazakhstan ranks 161st of 167 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- FAOSTAT. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data, published as Net food imports by crop - Rice, broken. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Net food imports are generated from FAOSTAT, taking Export level (tonnes) from the Import level (tonnes) [both under Trade: Crops and Livestock Products]. Net food imports are a proxy for the country's vulnerability to global food prices.