MNE vs RWA: Renewable natural capital per capita, total
MNE
4,332 current US$
in 2020
RWA
4,377 current US$
in 2020
MNE rank
97th
RWA rank
95th
Renewable natural capital per capita, total over time
- MNE
- RWA
How they compare
RWA currently reports 4,377 current US$ against 4,332 current US$ in MNE, a difference of 45 current US$.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 14 shared years of data; in 2007 it was MNE ahead.
MNE ranks 97th and RWA ranks 95th of 150 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, MNE averaged higher in 1 and RWA in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | MNE | RWA | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4,065 current US$ | 4,336 current US$ | 270.49 current US$ | RWA |
| 2010s | 4,948 current US$ | 4,825 current US$ | 123 current US$ | MNE |
| 2020s | 4,332 current US$ | 4,377 current US$ | 44.68 current US$ | RWA |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher renewable natural capital per capita, total, MNE or RWA?
- RWA, at 4,377 current US$ against 4,332 current US$ in MNE as of 2020.
- What is the difference in renewable natural capital per capita, total between MNE and RWA?
- 45 current US$, with RWA ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for MNE and RWA?
- 14 years are reported by both, from 2007 to 2020.
- How do MNE and RWA rank globally for renewable natural capital per capita, total?
- MNE ranks 97th and RWA ranks 95th of 150 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Renewable natural capital per capita, total (current US$). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.