Australia and New Zealand vs Cabo Verde: FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Value

Australia and New Zealand
1,866 1000 No
in 2023
Cabo Verde
15.61 1000 No
in 2023
Australia and New Zealand rank
33rd
Cabo Verde rank
31st

FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Value over time

  • Australia and New Zealand
  • Cabo Verde
05001.0k1.5k2.0k200020112023

How they compare

Australia and New Zealand currently reports 1,866 1000 No against 15.61 1000 No in Cabo Verde, a difference of 1,850 1000 No.

That makes Australia and New Zealand's figure about 119.5 times Cabo Verde's.

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

Australia and New Zealand ranks 33rd and Cabo Verde ranks 31st of 137 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia and New Zealand Cabo Verde Difference Ahead
2000s 1,685 1000 No 15.8 1000 No 1,670 1000 No Australia and New Zealand
2010s 1,785 1000 No 18.68 1000 No 1,766 1000 No Australia and New Zealand
2020s 1,844 1000 No 14.9 1000 No 1,829 1000 No Australia and New Zealand

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher fao model — total non-agricultural afs employment — value, Australia and New Zealand or Cabo Verde?
Australia and New Zealand, at 1,866 1000 No against 15.61 1000 No in Cabo Verde as of 2023.
What is the difference in fao model — total non-agricultural afs employment — value between Australia and New Zealand and Cabo Verde?
1,850 1000 No, with Australia and New Zealand ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and New Zealand and Cabo Verde?
24 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2023.
How do Australia and New Zealand and Cabo Verde rank globally for fao model — total non-agricultural afs employment — value?
Australia and New Zealand ranks 33rd and Cabo Verde ranks 31st of 137 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — 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 and New Zealand vs Cabo Verde: FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Value. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 14 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/fao-model-total-non-agricultural-afs-employment-value/australia-and-new-zealand/cabo-verde-2/

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-total-non-agricultural-afs-employment-value/australia-and-new-zealand/cabo-verde-2/">Australia and New Zealand vs Cabo Verde: FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Value</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
FAO Model — Total non-agricultural AFS employment — Value
Unit
1000 No
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
183 places, 4,118 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.