Chile vs New Zealand: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$)

Chile
0.0327 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP
in 2025
New Zealand
0.0339 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP
in 2024
Chile rank
118th
New Zealand rank
116th

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$) over time

  • Chile
  • New Zealand
0.050.10.150.20.25196019922025

How they compare

New Zealand currently reports 0.0339 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP against 0.0327 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP in Chile, a difference of 0.0012 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 48 shared years of data; in 1977 it was New Zealand ahead.

Chile ranks 118th and New Zealand ranks 116th of 194 countries.

New Zealand has averaged higher in every one of the 6 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Chile New Zealand Difference Ahead
1970s 0.0834 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.1719 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.0885 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP New Zealand
1980s 0.0799 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.1436 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.0636 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP New Zealand
1990s 0.0595 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.1045 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.0451 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP New Zealand
2000s 0.0538 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.0765 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.0227 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP New Zealand
2010s 0.0349 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.0405 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.0057 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP New Zealand
2020s 0.0332 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.0341 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP 0.0009 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP New Zealand

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 us$), Chile or New Zealand?
New Zealand, at 0.0339 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP against 0.0327 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP in Chile as of 2024.
What is the difference in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 us$) between Chile and New Zealand?
0.0012 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP, with New Zealand ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and New Zealand?
48 years are reported by both, from 1977 to 2024.
How do Chile and New Zealand rank globally for agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 us$)?
Chile ranks 118th and New Zealand ranks 116th of 194 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$), per unit of GDP. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Chile vs New Zealand: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 17 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-added-constant-2015-us-per-unit-of-gdp/chile/new-zealand/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-added-constant-2015-us-per-unit-of-gdp/chile/new-zealand/">Chile vs New Zealand: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$), per unit of GDP
Unit
constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
240 places, 10,602 data points, 1960–2025
Last refreshed

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$) divided by GDP (current US$), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.