Ecuador vs Sweden: R&D Environmental Protection, Recurrent (central government)
R&D Environmental Protection, Recurrent (central government) over time
- Ecuador
- Sweden
How they compare
Sweden currently reports 50.82 million USD against 47.55 million USD in Ecuador, a difference of 3.27 million USD.
That makes Sweden's figure about 1.1 times Ecuador's.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Sweden ahead.
Ecuador ranks 8th and Sweden ranks 6th of 49 countries.
Sweden has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Sweden | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 25.38 million USD | 43.55 million USD | 18.17 million USD | Sweden |
| 2020s | 49.54 million USD | 53.48 million USD | 3.94 million USD | Sweden |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher r&d environmental protection, recurrent (central government), Ecuador or Sweden?
- Sweden, at 50.82 million USD against 47.55 million USD in Ecuador as of 2024.
- What is the difference in r&d environmental protection, recurrent (central government) between Ecuador and Sweden?
- 3.27 million USD, with Sweden ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Sweden?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2024.
- How do Ecuador and Sweden rank globally for r&d environmental protection, recurrent (central government)?
- Ecuador ranks 8th and Sweden ranks 6th 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.