China, Hong Kong SAR vs Lithuania: ILO - Modelled Estimates; FAOSTAT - Value added (2015 US$)

China, Hong Kong SAR
21,011 USD
in 2024
Lithuania
21,035 USD
in 2024
China, Hong Kong SAR rank
45th
Lithuania rank
44th

ILO - Modelled Estimates; FAOSTAT - Value added (2015 US$) over time

  • China, Hong Kong SAR
  • Lithuania
010.0k20.0k30.0k40.0k50.0k199120072024

How they compare

Lithuania currently reports 21,035 USD against 21,011 USD in China, Hong Kong SAR, a difference of 24 USD.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 33 shared years of data; in 1992 it was China, Hong Kong SAR ahead.

China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 45th and Lithuania ranks 44th of 168 countries.

China, Hong Kong SAR has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade China, Hong Kong SAR Lithuania Difference Ahead
1990s 33,133 USD 5,158 USD 27,976 USD China, Hong Kong SAR
2000s 32,123 USD 6,025 USD 26,097 USD China, Hong Kong SAR
2010s 25,178 USD 12,192 USD 12,986 USD China, Hong Kong SAR
2020s 23,725 USD 20,008 USD 3,717 USD China, Hong Kong SAR

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher ilo - modelled estimates; faostat - value added (2015 us$), China, Hong Kong SAR or Lithuania?
Lithuania, at 21,035 USD against 21,011 USD in China, Hong Kong SAR as of 2024.
What is the difference in ilo - modelled estimates; faostat - value added (2015 us$) between China, Hong Kong SAR and Lithuania?
24 USD, with Lithuania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for China, Hong Kong SAR and Lithuania?
33 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2024.
How do China, Hong Kong SAR and Lithuania rank globally for ilo - modelled estimates; faostat - value added (2015 us$)?
China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 45th and Lithuania ranks 44th of 168 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as ILO - Modelled Estimates; FAOSTAT - Value added (2015 US$) — Agriculture value added per worker (constant 2015 US$) — 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

China, Hong Kong SAR vs Lithuania: ILO - Modelled Estimates; FAOSTAT - Value added (2015 US$). Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 06 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/ilo-modelled-estimates-faostat-value-added-2015-us-agriculture-value-added-per-worker/china-hong-kong-sar/lithuania/

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/ilo-modelled-estimates-faostat-value-added-2015-us-agriculture-value-added-per-worker/china-hong-kong-sar/lithuania/">China, Hong Kong SAR vs Lithuania: ILO - Modelled Estimates; FAOSTAT - Value added (2015 US$)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
ILO - Modelled Estimates; FAOSTAT - Value added (2015 US$) — Agriculture value added per worker (constant 2015 US$) — Value
Unit
USD
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
183 places, 6,104 data points, 1991–2024
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.