Kiribati vs Marshall Islands: Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP
Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP over time
- Kiribati
- Marshall Islands
How they compare
Kiribati currently reports 6.50 million constant LCU against 2.18 million constant LCU in Marshall Islands, a difference of 4.32 million constant LCU.
That makes Kiribati's figure about 3.0 times Marshall Islands's.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Kiribati has been ahead every year.
Kiribati ranks 50th and Marshall Islands ranks 52nd of 154 countries.
Kiribati has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kiribati | Marshall Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | -605,913 constant LCU | -24.29 million constant LCU | 23.68 million constant LCU | Kiribati |
| 2020s | 611,136 constant LCU | -18.81 million constant LCU | 19.43 million constant LCU | Kiribati |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp, Kiribati or Marshall Islands?
- Kiribati, at 6.50 million constant LCU against 2.18 million constant LCU in Marshall Islands as of 2024.
- What is the difference in discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp between Kiribati and Marshall Islands?
- 4.32 million constant LCU, with Kiribati ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kiribati and Marshall Islands?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2019 to 2024.
- How do Kiribati and Marshall Islands rank globally for discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp?
- Kiribati ranks 50th and Marshall Islands ranks 52nd of 154 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks, published as Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP (constant LCU). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Although the SNA ensures there is perfect consistency between the three measures of GDP, this is a conceptual consistency that in general does not emerge naturally from data compilations. This is because of the wide disparity of data sources that must be called on and the fact that any error in any source will lead to a difference between at least two of the GDP measures. In practice it is inevitable that many such data errors will exist and will become apparent in exercises such as the balancing of supply and use tables. This indicator is expressed in constant prices, meaning the underlying series have been adjusted to account for price changes over time. The reference year for this adjustment varies by country.