Mali vs New Zealand: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%)
Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%) over time
- Mali
- New Zealand
How they compare
Mali currently reports 20.6% against 17.9% in New Zealand, a difference of 2.7%.
That makes Mali's figure about 1.2 times New Zealand's.
Across all 8 years both countries report, Mali has been ahead every year.
Mali ranks 67th and New Zealand ranks 69th of 130 countries.
Mali has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mali | New Zealand | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 25.0% | 13.7% | 11.3% | Mali |
| 2020s | 20.7% | 16.2% | 4.5% | Mali |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, Mali or New Zealand?
- Mali, at 20.6% against 17.9% in New Zealand as of 2024.
- What is the difference in prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population between Mali and New Zealand?
- 2.7%, with Mali ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mali and New Zealand?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2017 to 2024.
- How do Mali and New Zealand rank globally for prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population?
- Mali ranks 67th and New Zealand ranks 69th of 130 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), published as Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The percentage of people in the population who live in households classified as moderately or severely food insecure. A household is classified as moderately or severely food insecure when at least one adult in the household has reported to have been exposed, at times during the year, to low quality diets and might have been forced to also reduce the quantity of food they would normally eat because of a lack of money or other resources.