Saint Kitts and Nevis vs Zimbabwe: Sugar Crops Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)

Saint Kitts and Nevis
0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP
in 2005
Zimbabwe
0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP
in 2024
Saint Kitts and Nevis rank
11th
Zimbabwe rank
14th

Sugar Crops Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016) over time

  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Zimbabwe
00.0010.0010.002196119922024

How they compare

Saint Kitts and Nevis currently reports 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP against 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP in Zimbabwe, a difference of 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP.

That makes Saint Kitts and Nevis's figure about 1.1 times Zimbabwe's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 45 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.

Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 11th and Zimbabwe ranks 14th of 131 countries.

Across the 5 decades both report, Saint Kitts and Nevis averaged higher in 4 and Zimbabwe in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Saint Kitts and Nevis Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 0.0011 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0.0011 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP Saint Kitts and Nevis
1970s 0.0005 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0.0004 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP Saint Kitts and Nevis
1980s 0.0001 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0.0001 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP Saint Kitts and Nevis
1990s 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP Saint Kitts and Nevis
2000s 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP Zimbabwe

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher sugar crops primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016), Saint Kitts and Nevis or Zimbabwe?
Saint Kitts and Nevis, at 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP against 0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP in Zimbabwe as of 2005.
What is the difference in sugar crops primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016) between Saint Kitts and Nevis and Zimbabwe?
0 1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP, with Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Saint Kitts and Nevis and Zimbabwe?
45 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2005.
How do Saint Kitts and Nevis and Zimbabwe rank globally for sugar crops primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016)?
Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 11th and Zimbabwe ranks 14th of 131 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Sugar Crops Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$), per unit of GDP. 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

Saint Kitts and Nevis vs Zimbabwe: Sugar Crops Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 06 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/sugar-crops-primary-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-i-per-unit-of-gdp/st-kitts-and-nevis/zimbabwe/

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/sugar-crops-primary-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-i-per-unit-of-gdp/st-kitts-and-nevis/zimbabwe/">Saint Kitts and Nevis vs Zimbabwe: Sugar Crops Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Sugar Crops Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$), per unit of GDP
Unit
1000 Int$ per US$ of GDP
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
132 places, 6,651 data points, 1961–2024
Last refreshed

Sugar Crops Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$) divided by GDP (current US$), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.