Australia vs Finland: R&D Environmental Protection, Recurrent (central government)
R&D Environmental Protection, Recurrent (central government) over time
- Australia
- Finland
How they compare
Australia currently reports 1,057 million USD against 82.18 million USD in Finland, a difference of 974.82 million USD.
That makes Australia's figure about 12.9 times Finland's.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Australia has been ahead every year.
Australia ranks 1st and Finland ranks 4th of 49 countries.
Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | Finland | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 748.69 million USD | 62.89 million USD | 685.8 million USD | Australia |
| 2020s | 1,002 million USD | 73.66 million USD | 928.64 million USD | Australia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher r&d environmental protection, recurrent (central government), Australia or Finland?
- Australia, at 1,057 million USD against 82.18 million USD in Finland as of 2024.
- What is the difference in r&d environmental protection, recurrent (central government) between Australia and Finland?
- 974.82 million USD, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Finland?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2023.
- How do Australia and Finland rank globally for r&d environmental protection, recurrent (central government)?
- Australia ranks 1st and Finland ranks 4th of 49 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as R&D Environmental Protection, Recurrent (central government expenditure) — Value US$. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Statistics Division of FAO collects annually data on Government Expenditure on Agriculture through a questionnaire, which was developed in partnership with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF is the responsible institution for the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) methodology and annually collects GFS data, including Expenditure by Functions of Government (COFOG). The Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) is an international classification developed by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and published by the United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD), with the aim of categorise governments' functions according to their purposes. The FAO questionnaire aligns with Table 7 of the IMF GFS questionnaire, replicates the relevant aggregates and drills down to request additional detail related to Agriculture. The FAO dataset consists of a time series, from 2001 onwards, of Total Government Expenditure and expenditure in: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, along with its three disaggregated subsectors of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; and Environmental Protection. In addition, expenditure in each detailed function are further disaggregated into Recurrent and Capital expenditure. Additional indicators include the Agriculture Share of Government Expenditure, and the Agriculture Orientation Index (ratio between the Agriculture Share of Government Expenditure and the Agriculture Value Added as Share of GDP). Data are reported for the highest level of government available (Consolidated general government, consolidated central government or budgetary central government) and are available for about 100 countries on a regular basis.