Chile vs Norway: Meat indigenous, total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)

Chile
4.56 1000 USD per square kilometre
in 2023
Norway
4.28 1000 USD per square kilometre
in 2023
Chile rank
80th
Norway rank
83rd

Meat indigenous, total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016) over time

  • Chile
  • Norway
12345196119922023

How they compare

Chile currently reports 4.56 1000 USD per square kilometre against 4.28 1000 USD per square kilometre in Norway, a difference of 0.28 1000 USD per square kilometre.

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

The two have swapped places 1 time across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Norway ahead.

Chile ranks 80th and Norway ranks 83rd of 123 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Chile averaged higher in 3 and Norway in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Chile Norway Difference Ahead
1960s 0.9319 1000 USD per square kilometre 2.38 1000 USD per square kilometre 1.45 1000 USD per square kilometre Norway
1970s 1.13 1000 USD per square kilometre 2.38 1000 USD per square kilometre 1.25 1000 USD per square kilometre Norway
1980s 1.55 1000 USD per square kilometre 2.83 1000 USD per square kilometre 1.28 1000 USD per square kilometre Norway
1990s 2.53 1000 USD per square kilometre 3.22 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.686 1000 USD per square kilometre Norway
2000s 3.68 1000 USD per square kilometre 3.64 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0383 1000 USD per square kilometre Chile
2010s 4.35 1000 USD per square kilometre 4.06 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.2944 1000 USD per square kilometre Chile
2020s 4.64 1000 USD per square kilometre 4.26 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.3838 1000 USD per square kilometre Chile

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher meat indigenous, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016), Chile or Norway?
Chile, at 4.56 1000 USD per square kilometre against 4.28 1000 USD per square kilometre in Norway as of 2023.
What is the difference in meat indigenous, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016) between Chile and Norway?
0.28 1000 USD per square kilometre, with Chile ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Norway?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Chile and Norway rank globally for meat indigenous, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016)?
Chile ranks 80th and Norway ranks 83rd of 123 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Meat indigenous, total — 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 Norway: Meat indigenous, total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 05 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/meat-indigenous-total-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-us-per-square/chile/norway/

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/meat-indigenous-total-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-us-per-square/chile/norway/">Chile vs Norway: Meat indigenous, total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Meat indigenous, total — 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
124 places, 6,959 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Meat indigenous, total — 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.