Australia vs United Republic of Tanzania: FAO Model — Share of non-agricultural AFS employment in total AFS

Australia
78.91 %
in 2023
United Republic of Tanzania
19.4 %
in 2023
Australia rank
9th
United Republic of Tanzania rank
10th

FAO Model — Share of non-agricultural AFS employment in total AFS over time

  • Australia
  • United Republic of Tanzania
020406080200020112023

How they compare

Australia currently reports 78.91 % against 19.4 % in United Republic of Tanzania, a difference of 59.51 %.

That makes Australia's figure about 4.1 times United Republic of Tanzania's.

Across all 24 years both countries report, Australia has been ahead every year.

Australia ranks 9th and United Republic of Tanzania ranks 10th of 125 countries.

Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia United Republic of Tanzania Difference Ahead
2000s 70.8 % 12.94 % 57.85 % Australia
2010s 75.99 % 16.08 % 59.91 % Australia
2020s 76.91 % 18.8 % 58.1 % Australia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher fao model — share of non-agricultural afs employment in total afs, Australia or United Republic of Tanzania?
Australia, at 78.91 % against 19.4 % in United Republic of Tanzania as of 2023.
What is the difference in fao model — share of non-agricultural afs employment in total afs between Australia and United Republic of Tanzania?
59.51 %, with Australia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and United Republic of Tanzania?
24 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2023.
How do Australia and United Republic of Tanzania rank globally for fao model — share of non-agricultural afs employment in total afs?
Australia ranks 9th and United Republic of Tanzania ranks 10th of 125 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as FAO Model — Share of non-agricultural AFS employment in total AFS employment — Male — Value. 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

Australia vs United Republic of Tanzania: FAO Model — Share of non-agricultural AFS employment in total AFS. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 18 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/fao-model-share-of-non-agricultural-afs-employment-in-total-afs-employment-male-value/australia/united-republic-of-tanzania/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/fao-model-share-of-non-agricultural-afs-employment-in-total-afs-employment-male-value/australia/united-republic-of-tanzania/">Australia vs United Republic of Tanzania: FAO Model — Share of non-agricultural AFS employment in total AFS</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
FAO Model — Share of non-agricultural AFS employment in total AFS employment — Male — Value
Unit
%
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
171 places, 3,932 data points, 2000–2023
Last refreshed

The FAOSTAT Employment indicators domain focuses on indicators related to employment in agrifood systems and rural areas. The update is performed yearly, using data from the International Labour Organization (ILO) database that contains a rich set of indicators from a wide range of topics related to labour statistics. The indicators published in FAOSTAT are derived from the labour force statistics (LFS) and rural and urban labour markets (RURURB) databases of the ILOSTAT database. In addition, the ILO modelled estimates and projections (ILOEST) are used to provide information on employment in agriculture. FAOSTAT also publishes indicators on employment in agrifood systems (AFS) from 2000 at the national, regional, and global levels, using a methodology developed by the FAO to estimate the number of people employed within these systems.