The demographic transition in Sweden in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka: The demographic transition in Sweden was 17.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 2010. ▼ Falling
Latest (2010)
17.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population)
Change on year
down 4.2%
World rank
17th
of 56 countries
All-time high
42 per 1,000 (in the entire population)
in 1926
All-time low
17.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population)
in 1999
Years of data
163
1843–2010
The demographic transition in Sweden in Sri Lanka, 1843–2010
Source: Mitchell (2013) – processed by Our World in Data. Measured in per 1,000 (in the entire population).
Analysis
In 2010, the demographic transition in sweden in Sri Lanka stood at 17.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population).
Compared with earlier readings it is down 4.2% on the previous year and up 2.0% over ten years.
Over the whole period, the demographic transition in sweden in Sri Lanka peaked at 42 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 1926 and was at its lowest, 17.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population), in 1999.
Sri Lanka ranks 17th of 56 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 163 years of available data.
The demographic transition in Sweden in Sri Lanka, year by year
| Year | per 1,000 (in the entire population) | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1843 | 28.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | — |
| 1847 | 25 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -11.3% |
| 1848 | 25.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.8% |
| 1849 | 22.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -9.1% |
| 1850 | 21.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -7.0% |
| 1851 | 23.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +11.7% |
| 1852 | 24.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.4% |
| 1853 | 24.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.6% |
| 1854 | 23.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.2% |
| 1855 | 22.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.2% |
| 1856 | 24.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +7.0% |
| 1857 | 23.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.9% |
| 1858 | 26 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +9.2% |
| 1859 | 24.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.2% |
| 1860 | 27 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +10.7% |
| 1861 | 24.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -9.6% |
| 1862 | 23.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.1% |
| 1863 | 20.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -11.5% |
| 1864 | 22.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +7.7% |
| 1865 | 22 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.3% |
| 1866 | 23.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +5.0% |
| 1867 | 20.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -11.7% |
| 1868 | 26.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +29.9% |
| 1869 | 25.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.6% |
| 1870 | 29.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +14.7% |
| 1871 | 28.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.4% |
| 1872 | 28.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.0% |
| 1873 | 29.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.1% |
| 1874 | 30.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.4% |
| 1875 | 27.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -9.3% |
| 1876 | 28.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.4% |
| 1878 | 24 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -16.1% |
| 1879 | 27.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +12.9% |
| 1880 | 28.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.1% |
| 1881 | 27.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.9% |
| 1882 | 26.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.8% |
| 1883 | 29.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +9.8% |
| 1884 | 30.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +5.5% |
| 1885 | 27.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -10.1% |
| 1886 | 26.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.0% |
| 1887 | 32 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +20.3% |
| 1888 | 31.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.9% |
| 1889 | 27.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -13.1% |
| 1890 | 31.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +16.8% |
| 1891 | 32 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1892 | 30.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.0% |
| 1893 | 31.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.0% |
| 1894 | 32.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.8% |
| 1895 | 31.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.3% |
| 1896 | 31.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.6% |
| 1897 | 37.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +18.4% |
| 1898 | 38.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.5% |
| 1899 | 32.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -16.5% |
| 1900 | 38.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +20.1% |
| 1901 | 37.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.4% |
| 1902 | 38.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.7% |
| 1903 | 40 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.9% |
| 1904 | 38.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.8% |
| 1905 | 28.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -25.5% |
| 1906 | 36.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +27.2% |
| 1907 | 33.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -7.9% |
| 1908 | 41 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +22.0% |
| 1909 | 37.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -8.5% |
| 1910 | 39 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.0% |
| 1911 | 37.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.8% |
| 1912 | 33.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -12.4% |
| 1913 | 38.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +16.0% |
| 1914 | 37.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.6% |
| 1915 | 37.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.6% |
| 1916 | 39.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +7.0% |
| 1917 | 41.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.8% |
| 1918 | 41 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.0% |
| 1919 | 35.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -12.4% |
| 1920 | 36.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.7% |
| 1921 | 40.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +11.2% |
| 1922 | 39.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.7% |
| 1923 | 38.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.0% |
| 1924 | 37.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.1% |
| 1925 | 39.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +6.4% |
| 1926 | 42 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +5.3% |
| 1927 | 41 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.4% |
| 1928 | 41.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.2% |
| 1929 | 38.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -8.6% |
| 1930 | 39 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.8% |
| 1931 | 37.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.1% |
| 1932 | 37 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.1% |
| 1933 | 38.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.3% |
| 1934 | 37.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.6% |
| 1935 | 34.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -7.5% |
| 1936 | 34.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.9% |
| 1937 | 37.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +10.9% |
| 1938 | 35.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.0% |
| 1939 | 36 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1940 | 35.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.6% |
| 1941 | 36.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.0% |
| 1942 | 36.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.5% |
| 1943 | 40.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +10.6% |
| 1944 | 37.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -8.6% |
| 1945 | 36.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.1% |
| 1946 | 38.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.6% |
| 1947 | 39.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.6% |
| 1948 | 39.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.8% |
| 1949 | 39.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.5% |
| 1950 | 39.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.5% |
| 1951 | 39.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1952 | 38.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.5% |
| 1953 | 38.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.3% |
| 1954 | 35.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -7.8% |
| 1955 | 37.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +4.5% |
| 1956 | 36.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.4% |
| 1957 | 36.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1958 | 35.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.9% |
| 1959 | 36.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.1% |
| 1960 | 36.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.8% |
| 1961 | 35.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.9% |
| 1962 | 35.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.6% |
| 1963 | 34.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.6% |
| 1964 | 33 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.1% |
| 1965 | 33.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.3% |
| 1966 | 32.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.4% |
| 1967 | 31.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.2% |
| 1968 | 32 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.3% |
| 1969 | 30.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.0% |
| 1970 | 29.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.3% |
| 1971 | 30.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +3.4% |
| 1972 | 30 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.3% |
| 1973 | 28 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.7% |
| 1974 | 27.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.8% |
| 1975 | 27.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.1% |
| 1976 | 27.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1977 | 27.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.4% |
| 1978 | 28.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.2% |
| 1979 | 28.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.4% |
| 1980 | 28.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.7% |
| 1981 | 28.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.7% |
| 1982 | 26.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.0% |
| 1983 | 26.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.9% |
| 1984 | 24.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.7% |
| 1985 | 24.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.0% |
| 1986 | 22.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -8.2% |
| 1987 | 21.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.8% |
| 1988 | 20.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.5% |
| 1989 | 21.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.9% |
| 1990 | 20.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -5.6% |
| 1991 | 21.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +5.0% |
| 1992 | 20.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.7% |
| 1993 | 19.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.0% |
| 1994 | 19.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1995 | 18.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -6.5% |
| 1996 | 18.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 1997 | 17.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -3.8% |
| 1998 | 17.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.2% |
| 1999 | 17.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.1% |
| 2000 | 17.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.0% |
| 2002 | 19.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +10.4% |
| 2003 | 19.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +1.0% |
| 2004 | 18.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.6% |
| 2005 | 18.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +0.5% |
| 2006 | 18.81 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -0.5% |
| 2007 | 19.29 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | +2.6% |
| 2008 | 18.79 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -2.6% |
| 2009 | 18.43 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -1.9% |
| 2010 | 17.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | -4.2% |
Sri Lanka compared with similar countries
- Sri Lanka's 17.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population) is below the median for upper middle income countries, which is 18.43 per 1,000 (in the entire population), 96% of the median. (14 countries reporting)
Biggest year-on-year movements
Years where The demographic transition in Sweden in Sri Lanka 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1868 | +29.9% | 20.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 26.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) |
| 1906 | +27.2% | 28.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 36.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1840s | 25.32 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 22.9 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 28.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 4 |
| 1850s | 23.94 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 21.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 26 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1860s | 23.56 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 20.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 27 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1870s | 28.21 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 24 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 30.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 9 |
| 1880s | 28.69 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 26.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 32 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1890s | 32.98 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 30.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 38.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1900s | 37.06 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 28.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 41 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1910s | 38.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 33.2 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 41.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1920s | 39.55 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 36.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 42 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1930s | 36.74 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 34.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 39 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1940s | 38 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 35.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 40.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1950s | 37.56 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 35.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 39.8 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1960s | 33.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 30.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 36.6 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1970s | 28.62 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 27.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 30.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1980s | 24.5 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 20.7 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 28.4 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 1990s | 19.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 17.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 21.1 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 10 |
| 2000s | 18.75 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 17.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 19.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 9 |
| 2010s | 17.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 17.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 17.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population) | 1 |
Countries ranked near Sri Lanka
- 14 Argentina 18.57 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 15 El Salvador 18.29 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 16 Tunisia 17.72 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 18 Guadeloupe 17.13 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 19 Ireland 16.53 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
- 20 Jamaica 16.33 per 1,000 (in the entire population) compare
More reference data data for Sri Lanka
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.1608 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.316 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 2.33 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.1784 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 2.33 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.539 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.1604 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 1.63 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 10.15 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.9713 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is the demographic transition in sweden in Sri Lanka?
- The demographic transition in sweden in Sri Lanka was 17.65 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 2010, according to Mitchell (2013) – processed by Our World in Data.
- What is the highest the demographic transition in sweden recorded in Sri Lanka?
- The highest recorded value was 42 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 1926.
- What is the lowest the demographic transition in sweden recorded in Sri Lanka?
- The lowest recorded value was 17.3 per 1,000 (in the entire population) in 1999.
- How does Sri Lanka rank for the demographic transition in sweden?
- Sri Lanka ranks 17th out of 56 countries with data for 2010.
- Is the demographic transition in sweden rising or falling in Sri Lanka?
- Over the last ten years it is up 2.0%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Sri Lanka 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 — 163 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.