Namibia vs Tanzania: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%)
Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%) over time
- Namibia
- Tanzania
How they compare
Tanzania currently reports 57.0% against 54.0% in Namibia, a difference of 3.0%.
That makes Tanzania's figure about 1.1 times Namibia's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Namibia ahead.
Namibia ranks 25th and Tanzania ranks 22nd of 130 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Namibia averaged higher in 1 and Tanzania in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Namibia | Tanzania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 55.4% | 54.6% | 0.8% | Namibia |
| 2020s | 56.5% | 57.9% | 1.4% | Tanzania |
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, Namibia or Tanzania?
- Tanzania, at 57.0% against 54.0% in Namibia as of 2024.
- What is the difference in prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population between Namibia and Tanzania?
- 3.0%, with Tanzania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Namibia and Tanzania?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2024.
- How do Namibia and Tanzania rank globally for prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population?
- Namibia ranks 25th and Tanzania ranks 22nd 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.