How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Latvia?

32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.

Where does this data come from?

Statizoid (derived), published as Agriculture — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$), per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Chile vs Latvia: Agriculture — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand)

Chile

21.04 1000 USD per square kilometre

in 2023

Latvia

19.22 1000 USD per square kilometre

in 2023

Chile rank

91st

Latvia rank

94th

Agriculture — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand) over time

Chile
Latvia

How they compare

Chile currently reports 21.04 1000 USD per square kilometre against 19.22 1000 USD per square kilometre in Latvia, a difference of 1.82 1000 USD per square kilometre.

That makes Chile's figure about 1.1 times Latvia's.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 32 shared years of data; in 1992 it was Latvia ahead.

Chile ranks 91st and Latvia ranks 94th of 140 countries.

Across the 4 decades both report, Chile averaged higher in 3 and Latvia in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Chile	Latvia	Difference	Ahead
1990s	13.44 1000 USD per square kilometre	16.53 1000 USD per square kilometre	3.1 1000 USD per square kilometre	Latvia
2000s	17.19 1000 USD per square kilometre	14.3 1000 USD per square kilometre	2.88 1000 USD per square kilometre	Chile
2010s	19.99 1000 USD per square kilometre	18.25 1000 USD per square kilometre	1.74 1000 USD per square kilometre	Chile
2020s	21.01 1000 USD per square kilometre	20.57 1000 USD per square kilometre	0.4364 1000 USD per square kilometre	Chile

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher agriculture — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand), Chile or Latvia?: Chile, at 21.04 1000 USD per square kilometre against 19.22 1000 USD per square kilometre in Latvia as of 2023.
What is the difference in agriculture — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand) between Chile and Latvia?: 1.82 1000 USD per square kilometre, with Chile ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Latvia?: 32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.
How do Chile and Latvia rank globally for agriculture — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand)?: Chile ranks 91st and Latvia ranks 94th of 140 countries.
Where does this data come from?: Statizoid (derived), published as Agriculture — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$), per square kilometre. 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 Latvia: Agriculture — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 24 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-us-per-square-kilometre/chile/latvia/

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://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-us-per-square-kilometre/chile/latvia/">Chile vs Latvia: Agriculture — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator: Agriculture — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$), per square kilometre
Unit: 1000 USD per square kilometre
Source: Statizoid (derived)
Licence: Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage: 141 places, 7,942 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed: 24 September 2026

Agriculture — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$) divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.