Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP in Brazil
Brazil: Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP was 0 current LCU in 2025. ◆ Volatile
Latest (2025)
0 current LCU
Change on year
up 100.0%
World rank
76th
of 185 countries
All-time high
100 current LCU
in 1993
All-time low
-2,102 current LCU
in 1988
Years of data
66
1960–2025
Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP in Brazil, 1960–2025
Source: Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks. Measured in current LCU.
Analysis
In 2025, discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp in Brazil stood at 0 current LCU.
Compared with earlier readings it is up 100.0% on the previous year and down 100.0% over five years.
Over the whole period, discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp in Brazil peaked at 100 current LCU in 1993 and was at its lowest, -2,102 current LCU, in 1988.
That places Brazil 76th out of 185 countries with data for 2025, putting it in the middle of the range.
The series is highly variable year to year, so single readings are best treated with caution.
Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP in Brazil, year by year
| Year | current LCU | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1960 | 0.0001 current LCU | — |
| 1961 | 0.0002 current LCU | +57.6% |
| 1962 | -0.0001 current LCU | -149.0% |
| 1963 | 0.0001 current LCU | -156.8% |
| 1964 | -0.0001 current LCU | -302.9% |
| 1965 | 0.0005 current LCU | -513.4% |
| 1966 | 0.001 current LCU | +111.2% |
| 1967 | 0.0005 current LCU | -51.4% |
| 1968 | 0.0001 current LCU | -85.9% |
| 1969 | -0.0004 current LCU | -731.6% |
| 1970 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 1971 | -0.0006 current LCU | -573822.6% |
| 1972 | -0.0002 current LCU | -65.1% |
| 1973 | 0.0096 current LCU | -4375.5% |
| 1974 | 0.0115 current LCU | +19.7% |
| 1975 | 0.0162 current LCU | +41.2% |
| 1976 | 0.0019 current LCU | -88.3% |
| 1977 | 0.0009 current LCU | -53.4% |
| 1978 | -0.0034 current LCU | -486.1% |
| 1979 | -0.0356 current LCU | +936.9% |
| 1980 | 0.0454 current LCU | -227.6% |
| 1981 | -0.1877 current LCU | -513.6% |
| 1982 | -0.6765 current LCU | +260.4% |
| 1983 | -2.86 current LCU | +323.1% |
| 1984 | -13.89 current LCU | +385.4% |
| 1985 | -27.2 current LCU | +95.8% |
| 1986 | -57.89 current LCU | +112.8% |
| 1987 | -157.3 current LCU | +171.8% |
| 1988 | -2,102 current LCU | +1236.3% |
| 1989 | -0.0002 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 1990 | 0.5455 current LCU | -350773.4% |
| 1991 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 1992 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 1993 | 100 current LCU | — |
| 1994 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 1995 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 1996 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 1997 | 100 current LCU | — |
| 1998 | -100 current LCU | -200.0% |
| 1999 | 100 current LCU | -200.0% |
| 2000 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 2001 | 0.0001 current LCU | — |
| 2002 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 2003 | -100 current LCU | — |
| 2004 | 100 current LCU | -200.0% |
| 2005 | -100 current LCU | -200.0% |
| 2006 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 2007 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2008 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2009 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2010 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2011 | 100 current LCU | — |
| 2012 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 2013 | -0.0005 current LCU | — |
| 2014 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 2015 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2016 | 100 current LCU | — |
| 2017 | 100 current LCU | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 100 current LCU | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 2020 | 100 current LCU | — |
| 2021 | 100 current LCU | +0.0% |
| 2022 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 2023 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2024 | -100 current LCU | — |
| 2025 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 0.0002 current LCU | -0.0004 current LCU | 0.001 current LCU | 10 |
| 1970s | 0 current LCU | -0.0356 current LCU | 0.0162 current LCU | 10 |
| 1980s | -236.2 current LCU | -2,102 current LCU | 0.0454 current LCU | 10 |
| 1990s | 20.05 current LCU | -100 current LCU | 100 current LCU | 10 |
| 2000s | -10 current LCU | -100 current LCU | 100 current LCU | 10 |
| 2010s | 40 current LCU | -0.0005 current LCU | 100 current LCU | 10 |
| 2020s | 16.67 current LCU | -100 current LCU | 100 current LCU | 6 |
Countries ranked near Brazil
- 73 Senegal 0.0293 current LCU compare
- 74 Ethiopia 0.0112 current LCU compare
- 75 Greenland 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Albania 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Angola 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Armenia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Belgium 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Benin 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Bolivia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Bulgaria 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Burkina Faso 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Colombia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Comoros 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Croatia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Czechia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Denmark 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Ecuador 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Egypt 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Eswatini 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Georgia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Germany 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Guinea-Bissau 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Hong Kong 0 current LCU
- 76 Hungary 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Iceland 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Israel 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Japan 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Latvia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Macao 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Malawi 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Malta 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Mauritania 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Morocco 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Netherlands 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Panama 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Papua New Guinea 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Peru 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Poland 0 current LCU
- 76 Portugal 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Romania 0 current LCU compare
- 76 San Marino 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Slovakia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Slovenia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Spain 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Sweden 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Switzerland 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Togo 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Ukraine 0 current LCU compare
More economy & growth data for Brazil
- Africa's Development Dynamics (AfDD) Table 04 - Annual real GDP 1.56 Percent per annum (2029)
- Africa's Development Dynamics (AfDD) Table 02 - Annual real GDP 2 Percent per annum (2029)
- Industry (including construction), value added (constant 2015 US$) 1.45 % change on previous year (2025)
- Industry (including construction), value added (constant 2015 US$) 0.1599 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Industry (including construction), value added (constant 2015 US$) 1,713 constant 2015 US$ per person (2025)
- Industry (including construction), value added (constant LCU), annual 1.45 % change on previous year (2025)
- Industry (including construction), value added (constant LCU), per 0.4062 constant LCU per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Industry (including construction), value added (constant LCU), per 4,352 constant LCU per person (2025)
- Services, value added (current US$), annual growth rate 5.31 % change on previous year (2025)
- Services, value added (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.5974 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp in Brazil?
- Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp in Brazil was 0 current LCU in 2025, according to Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks.
- What is the highest discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp recorded in Brazil?
- The highest recorded value was 100 current LCU in 1993.
- What is the lowest discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp recorded in Brazil?
- The lowest recorded value was -2,102 current LCU in 1988.
- How does Brazil rank for discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp?
- Brazil ranks 76th out of 185 countries with data for 2025.
- Where does this Brazil data come from?
- The figures come from Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks, published as part of Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP (current LCU). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 66 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
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 current prices, meaning no adjustment has been made to account for price changes over time. This series is expressed in local currency units.