The demographic transition in Sweden in New Zealand
New Zealand: The demographic transition in Sweden was 14.49 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 2009. ▼ Falling
Latest (2009)
14.49 per 1,000 (in the entire population)
Change on year
down 3.9%
World rank
23rd
of 56 countries
All-time high
42.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population)
in 1866
All-time low
13.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population)
in 2002
Years of data
155
1855–2009
The demographic transition in Sweden in New Zealand, 1855–2009
Source: Mitchell (2013) – processed by Our World in Data. Measured in per 1,000 (in the entire population).
Analysis
The most recent figure for the demographic transition in sweden in New Zealand is 14.49 per 1,000 (in the entire population), measured in 2009.
That represents a change of down 3.9% on the previous year and down 2.7% over ten years.
Over the whole period, the demographic transition in sweden in New Zealand peaked at 42.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 1866 and was at its lowest, 13.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population), in 2002.
That places New Zealand 23rd out of 56 countries with data for 2009, putting it in the middle of the range.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 155 years of available data.
The demographic transition in Sweden in New Zealand, year by year
| Year | per 1,000 (in the entire population) | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1855 | 39.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | — |
| 1856 | 37.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.6% |
| 1857 | 39.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.5% |
| 1858 | 38.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.3% |
| 1859 | 37 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.1% |
| 1860 | 41.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +11.4% |
| 1861 | 38.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.6% |
| 1862 | 36.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.2% |
| 1863 | 35.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.2% |
| 1864 | 38.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +9.1% |
| 1865 | 41.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +6.8% |
| 1866 | 42.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.4% |
| 1867 | 42.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.6% |
| 1868 | 42.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.2% |
| 1869 | 41.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.5% |
| 1870 | 42.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.0% |
| 1871 | 40.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.0% |
| 1872 | 35.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -11.6% |
| 1873 | 39 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +8.6% |
| 1874 | 40.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.3% |
| 1875 | 40.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.2% |
| 1876 | 41.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.7% |
| 1877 | 41.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.0% |
| 1878 | 42 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.7% |
| 1879 | 40.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.0% |
| 1880 | 40.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.2% |
| 1881 | 38 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.9% |
| 1882 | 37.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.8% |
| 1883 | 36.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.7% |
| 1884 | 35.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.1% |
| 1885 | 34.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.2% |
| 1886 | 33.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.5% |
| 1887 | 32.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.3% |
| 1888 | 31.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.8% |
| 1889 | 30.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.2% |
| 1890 | 29.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.6% |
| 1891 | 29 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.4% |
| 1892 | 27.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.1% |
| 1893 | 27.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.1% |
| 1894 | 27.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.7% |
| 1895 | 26.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.8% |
| 1896 | 26.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.9% |
| 1897 | 26 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.1% |
| 1898 | 25.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.2% |
| 1899 | 25.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.3% |
| 1900 | 25.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.0% |
| 1901 | 26.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.7% |
| 1902 | 25.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.5% |
| 1903 | 26.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.7% |
| 1904 | 26.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.1% |
| 1905 | 27.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.1% |
| 1906 | 27.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.4% |
| 1907 | 27.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.7% |
| 1908 | 27.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.7% |
| 1909 | 27.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.7% |
| 1910 | 26.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.0% |
| 1911 | 26 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.8% |
| 1912 | 26.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.9% |
| 1913 | 26.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.5% |
| 1914 | 26 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.4% |
| 1915 | 25.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.7% |
| 1916 | 25.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.4% |
| 1917 | 25.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.8% |
| 1918 | 23.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -8.9% |
| 1919 | 21.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -8.5% |
| 1920 | 25.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +17.3% |
| 1921 | 23.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -7.6% |
| 1922 | 23.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.4% |
| 1923 | 21.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.0% |
| 1924 | 21.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.4% |
| 1925 | 21.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1926 | 21.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.9% |
| 1927 | 20.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.8% |
| 1928 | 19.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.5% |
| 1929 | 19.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.0% |
| 1930 | 19.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.5% |
| 1931 | 19.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.5% |
| 1932 | 18.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.2% |
| 1933 | 17.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.2% |
| 1934 | 17.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.6% |
| 1935 | 17.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.1% |
| 1936 | 18.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.0% |
| 1937 | 18.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.4% |
| 1938 | 19.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.1% |
| 1939 | 20.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.7% |
| 1940 | 22.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +11.9% |
| 1941 | 24.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +6.6% |
| 1942 | 23.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.1% |
| 1943 | 21.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -8.2% |
| 1944 | 23 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +8.5% |
| 1945 | 24.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +7.0% |
| 1946 | 27.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +10.2% |
| 1947 | 27.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.2% |
| 1948 | 26.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.2% |
| 1949 | 26.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.6% |
| 1950 | 25.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.8% |
| 1951 | 25.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.2% |
| 1952 | 26 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.6% |
| 1953 | 25.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.3% |
| 1954 | 25.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.0% |
| 1955 | 26.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.8% |
| 1956 | 26 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.4% |
| 1957 | 26.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.8% |
| 1958 | 26.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.5% |
| 1959 | 26.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.4% |
| 1960 | 26.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1961 | 27.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.3% |
| 1962 | 26.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.3% |
| 1963 | 25.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.7% |
| 1964 | 24.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.1% |
| 1965 | 22.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.4% |
| 1966 | 22.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.7% |
| 1967 | 22.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1968 | 22.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.9% |
| 1969 | 22.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.4% |
| 1970 | 22.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.2% |
| 1971 | 22.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.3% |
| 1972 | 21.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.5% |
| 1973 | 20.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.0% |
| 1974 | 19.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.4% |
| 1975 | 18.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.1% |
| 1976 | 17.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.8% |
| 1977 | 17.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.7% |
| 1978 | 16.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.3% |
| 1979 | 16.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.1% |
| 1980 | 16.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.6% |
| 1981 | 16.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.6% |
| 1982 | 15.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.7% |
| 1983 | 15.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.6% |
| 1984 | 16 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.3% |
| 1985 | 16 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1986 | 16.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.9% |
| 1987 | 16.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.1% |
| 1988 | 17.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.2% |
| 1989 | 17.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.6% |
| 1990 | 17.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.9% |
| 1991 | 17.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.7% |
| 1992 | 17.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.3% |
| 1993 | 17.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.6% |
| 1994 | 16.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.7% |
| 1995 | 15.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.1% |
| 1996 | 15.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.5% |
| 1997 | 15.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.6% |
| 1998 | 15.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.3% |
| 1999 | 14.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.3% |
| 2000 | 14.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.3% |
| 2001 | 14.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.0% |
| 2002 | 13.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.9% |
| 2003 | 14 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.2% |
| 2004 | 14.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.4% |
| 2005 | 14 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.4% |
| 2006 | 14.15 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.0% |
| 2007 | 15.15 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +7.1% |
| 2008 | 15.07 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.5% |
| 2009 | 14.49 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.9% |
New Zealand compared with similar countries
- New Zealand's 14.49 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), 1.2× the median. (34 countries reporting)
- New Zealand's 14.49 per 1,000 (in the entire population) is above the median for East Asia & Pacific, which is 13.47 per 1,000 (in the entire population), 1.1× the median. (7 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1850s | 38.34 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 37 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 39.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 5 |
| 1860s | 39.98 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 35.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 42.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1870s | 40.36 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 35.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 42.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1880s | 34.94 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 30.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 40.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1890s | 27.09 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 25.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 29.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1900s | 26.77 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 25.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 27.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1910s | 25.25 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 21.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 26.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1920s | 21.79 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 19.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 25.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1930s | 18.58 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 17.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 20.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1940s | 24.63 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 21.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 27.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1950s | 26.02 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 25.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 26.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1960s | 24.27 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 22.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 27.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1970s | 19.32 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 16.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 22.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1980s | 16.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 15.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 17.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1990s | 16.26 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 14.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 17.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 2000s | 14.39 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 13.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 15.15 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
Countries ranked near New Zealand
- 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
- 22 Chile 14.71 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
- 26 Australia 13.47 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
More reference data data for New Zealand
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.4532 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 9.92 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 10.93 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.0459 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 10.93 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 1.52 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 1.53 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 42.17 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 47.53 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.2499 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is the demographic transition in sweden in New Zealand?
- The demographic transition in sweden in New Zealand was 14.49 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 2009, according to Mitchell (2013) – processed by Our World in Data.
- What is the highest the demographic transition in sweden recorded in New Zealand?
- The highest recorded value was 42.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 1866.
- What is the lowest the demographic transition in sweden recorded in New Zealand?
- The lowest recorded value was 13.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 2002.
- How does New Zealand rank for the demographic transition in sweden?
- New Zealand ranks 23rd out of 56 countries with data for 2009.
- Is the demographic transition in sweden rising or falling in New Zealand?
- Over the last ten years it is down 2.7%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this New Zealand 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 — 155 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.