New Zealand vs Samoa: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population
Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population over time
- New Zealand
- Samoa
How they compare
Samoa currently reports 18.6% against 17.3% in New Zealand, a difference of 1.3%.
That makes Samoa's figure about 1.1 times New Zealand's.
Across all 7 years both countries report, Samoa has been ahead every year.
New Zealand ranks 70th and Samoa ranks 67th of 126 countries.
Samoa has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | New Zealand | Samoa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 13.7% | 23.1% | 9.4% | Samoa |
| 2020s | 15.8% | 19.9% | 4.1% | Samoa |
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, New Zealand or Samoa?
- Samoa, at 18.6% against 17.3% in New Zealand as of 2023.
- What is the difference in prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population between New Zealand and Samoa?
- 1.3%, with Samoa ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for New Zealand and Samoa?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2017 to 2023.
- How do New Zealand and Samoa rank globally for prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population?
- New Zealand ranks 70th and Samoa ranks 67th of 126 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.