The demographic transition in Sweden in Chile
Chile: The demographic transition in Sweden was 14.71 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 2008. ▼ Falling
Latest (2008)
14.71 per 1,000 (in the entire population)
Change on year
up 1.5%
World rank
22nd
of 56 countries
All-time high
52.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population)
in 1928
All-time low
14.08 per 1,000 (in the entire population)
in 2006
Years of data
161
1848–2008
The demographic transition in Sweden in Chile, 1848–2008
Source: Mitchell (2013) – processed by Our World in Data. Measured in per 1,000 (in the entire population).
Analysis
Chile recorded 14.71 per 1,000 (in the entire population) for the demographic transition in sweden in 2008.
Compared with earlier readings it is up 1.5% on the previous year and down 15.0% over ten years.
Over the whole period, the demographic transition in sweden in Chile peaked at 52.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 1928 and was at its lowest, 14.08 per 1,000 (in the entire population), in 2006.
That places Chile 22nd out of 56 countries with data for 2008, putting it in the middle of the range.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 161 years of available data.
The demographic transition in Sweden in Chile, year by year
| Year | per 1,000 (in the entire population) | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1848 | 36.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | — |
| 1849 | 37.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.6% |
| 1850 | 41.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +10.4% |
| 1851 | 38.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.8% |
| 1852 | 40.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +6.2% |
| 1853 | 44.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +9.3% |
| 1854 | 43.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.1% |
| 1855 | 44.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.2% |
| 1856 | 45.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.8% |
| 1857 | 44.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.5% |
| 1858 | 41.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -7.1% |
| 1859 | 41.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1860 | 47.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +14.4% |
| 1861 | 39.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -16.8% |
| 1862 | 40.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.0% |
| 1863 | 40.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1864 | 42.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.7% |
| 1865 | 36 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -14.9% |
| 1866 | 38.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +6.7% |
| 1867 | 39.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.9% |
| 1868 | 41.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.6% |
| 1869 | 42.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.9% |
| 1870 | 42.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.5% |
| 1871 | 41.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.9% |
| 1872 | 44.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +6.3% |
| 1873 | 44.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.8% |
| 1874 | 44.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.4% |
| 1875 | 42.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.7% |
| 1876 | 40.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.7% |
| 1877 | 38.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.2% |
| 1878 | 36.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.2% |
| 1879 | 40.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +11.2% |
| 1880 | 38.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.9% |
| 1881 | 44.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +16.2% |
| 1882 | 40.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -9.5% |
| 1883 | 40.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.0% |
| 1884 | 41.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.2% |
| 1885 | 25 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -39.2% |
| 1886 | 29 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +16.0% |
| 1887 | 29.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.4% |
| 1888 | 32.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +9.2% |
| 1889 | 38 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +18.4% |
| 1890 | 37.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.3% |
| 1891 | 30.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -20.1% |
| 1892 | 39.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +29.7% |
| 1893 | 39.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.3% |
| 1894 | 41.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.8% |
| 1895 | 39.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.9% |
| 1896 | 37.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.8% |
| 1897 | 39.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +5.3% |
| 1898 | 37.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.6% |
| 1899 | 37.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.5% |
| 1900 | 38.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.1% |
| 1901 | 39.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.3% |
| 1902 | 38.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.5% |
| 1903 | 38 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.8% |
| 1904 | 37.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.3% |
| 1905 | 38.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.8% |
| 1906 | 36.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.4% |
| 1907 | 38.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +5.1% |
| 1908 | 39.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.3% |
| 1909 | 39.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.5% |
| 1910 | 38.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.5% |
| 1911 | 39.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.3% |
| 1912 | 39.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1913 | 40.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.8% |
| 1914 | 39 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.9% |
| 1915 | 38.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.0% |
| 1916 | 40.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.4% |
| 1917 | 41.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.2% |
| 1918 | 36.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -10.4% |
| 1919 | 35.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.7% |
| 1920 | 39.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +8.9% |
| 1921 | 39 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.3% |
| 1922 | 38.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.5% |
| 1923 | 39.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.1% |
| 1924 | 39.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.3% |
| 1925 | 40 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.8% |
| 1926 | 40 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1927 | 41.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.8% |
| 1928 | 52.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +25.8% |
| 1929 | 41.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -21.1% |
| 1930 | 39.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.4% |
| 1931 | 34.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -13.1% |
| 1932 | 34 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.7% |
| 1933 | 33.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.6% |
| 1934 | 33.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1935 | 33.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1936 | 33.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.6% |
| 1937 | 32.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.6% |
| 1938 | 32.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.6% |
| 1939 | 33.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.7% |
| 1940 | 33.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1941 | 32.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.4% |
| 1942 | 33.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.5% |
| 1943 | 33.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1944 | 33.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1945 | 33.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1946 | 36.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +8.7% |
| 1947 | 36 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.6% |
| 1948 | 35.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.9% |
| 1949 | 34.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.7% |
| 1950 | 34 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.0% |
| 1951 | 33.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.3% |
| 1952 | 32.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.8% |
| 1953 | 34.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +5.8% |
| 1954 | 33.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.2% |
| 1955 | 34.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.5% |
| 1956 | 34.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.7% |
| 1957 | 37.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +8.2% |
| 1958 | 36.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.2% |
| 1959 | 36.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.6% |
| 1960 | 34.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.7% |
| 1961 | 34.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.9% |
| 1962 | 36.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.6% |
| 1963 | 34 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.3% |
| 1964 | 33.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.6% |
| 1965 | 32.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.4% |
| 1966 | 30.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.3% |
| 1967 | 31.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.3% |
| 1968 | 27.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -13.9% |
| 1969 | 25.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.5% |
| 1970 | 27.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +7.4% |
| 1971 | 28.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.8% |
| 1972 | 27.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.5% |
| 1973 | 26.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.2% |
| 1974 | 25.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.4% |
| 1975 | 24.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.6% |
| 1976 | 23 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.0% |
| 1977 | 21.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -7.0% |
| 1978 | 21.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.5% |
| 1979 | 21.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.5% |
| 1980 | 22.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.7% |
| 1981 | 23.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +5.4% |
| 1982 | 23.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.7% |
| 1983 | 22.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.7% |
| 1984 | 22.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1985 | 21.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.7% |
| 1986 | 22.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.3% |
| 1987 | 22.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.9% |
| 1988 | 23.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.5% |
| 1989 | 23.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.4% |
| 1990 | 22.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.3% |
| 1991 | 21.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.6% |
| 1992 | 21 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.8% |
| 1993 | 21.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.3% |
| 1994 | 20.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.1% |
| 1995 | 19.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.4% |
| 1996 | 18.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.6% |
| 1997 | 17.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.3% |
| 1998 | 17.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.8% |
| 1999 | 16.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.6% |
| 2000 | 16.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.8% |
| 2001 | 15.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.5% |
| 2002 | 15.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.2% |
| 2003 | 14.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.9% |
| 2004 | 14.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.7% |
| 2005 | 14.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.7% |
| 2006 | 14.08 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.8% |
| 2007 | 14.49 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.9% |
| 2008 | 14.71 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.5% |
Chile compared with similar countries
- Chile's 14.71 per 1,000 (in the entire population) is above the median for high income countries, which is 11.61 per 1,000 (in the entire population), 1.3× the median. (34 countries reporting)
- Chile's 14.71 per 1,000 (in the entire population) is below the median for Latin America & Caribbean, which is 18.29 per 1,000 (in the entire population), 80% of the median. (17 countries reporting)
Biggest year-on-year movements
Years where The demographic transition in Sweden in Chile changed far more than this series normally does. A large move can be a real event or a change in how the figure was measured — the source note below says who published it.
| Year | Change | From | To |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1885 | -39.2% | 41.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 25 per 1,000 (in the entire population) |
| 1892 | +29.7% | 30.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 39.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) |
| 1928 | +25.8% | 41.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 52.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1840s | 37.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 36.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 37.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 2 |
| 1850s | 42.69 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 38.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 45.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1860s | 40.84 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 36 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 47.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1870s | 41.67 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 36.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 44.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1880s | 35.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 25 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 44.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1890s | 37.91 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 30.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 41.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1900s | 38.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 36.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 39.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1910s | 39.03 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 35.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 41.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1920s | 41.03 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 38.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 52.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1930s | 33.92 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 32.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 39.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1940s | 34.09 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 32.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 36.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1950s | 34.71 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 32.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 37.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1960s | 32.02 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 25.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 36.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1970s | 24.71 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 21.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 28.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1980s | 22.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 21.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 23.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1990s | 19.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 16.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 22.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 2000s | 14.86 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 14.08 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 16.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 9 |
Countries ranked near Chile
- 19 Ireland 16.53 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 20 Jamaica 16.33 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 21 Costa Rica 15.55 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 23 New Zealand 14.49 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 24 Uruguay 14.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 25 Trinidad and Tobago 13.94 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
More reference data data for Chile
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.9268 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 2.22 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 5.33 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.2204 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 5.33 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 3.11 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 1.46 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 11.45 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 25.25 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 1.2 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is the demographic transition in sweden in Chile?
- The demographic transition in sweden in Chile was 14.71 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 2008, according to Mitchell (2013) – processed by Our World in Data.
- What is the highest the demographic transition in sweden recorded in Chile?
- The highest recorded value was 52.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 1928.
- What is the lowest the demographic transition in sweden recorded in Chile?
- The lowest recorded value was 14.08 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 2006.
- How does Chile rank for the demographic transition in sweden?
- Chile ranks 22nd out of 56 countries with data for 2008.
- Is the demographic transition in sweden rising or falling in Chile?
- Over the last ten years it is down 15.0%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Chile data come from?
- The figures come from Mitchell (2013) – processed by Our World in Data, published as part of The demographic transition in Sweden. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 161 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data).
About this data
Birth and death rates are expressed per 1,000 of the population.