Paraguay vs Tajikistan: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population
Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population over time
- Paraguay
- Tajikistan
How they compare
Paraguay currently reports 26.2% against 25.1% in Tajikistan, a difference of 1.1%.
Across all 8 years both countries report, Tajikistan has been ahead every year.
Paraguay ranks 58th and Tajikistan ranks 60th of 126 countries.
Tajikistan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Paraguay | Tajikistan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 16.0% | 26.1% | 10.2% | Tajikistan |
| 2020s | 25.8% | 29.7% | 3.9% | Tajikistan |
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, Paraguay or Tajikistan?
- Paraguay, at 26.2% against 25.1% in Tajikistan as of 2022.
- What is the difference in prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population between Paraguay and Tajikistan?
- 1.1%, with Paraguay ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Paraguay and Tajikistan?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2022.
- How do Paraguay and Tajikistan rank globally for prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population?
- Paraguay ranks 58th and Tajikistan ranks 60th 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.