Mauritania vs Nicaragua: Total Expenditure in Agricultural R&D (Standard Local Currency)

Mauritania
197.6 million SLC
in 2016
Nicaragua
152.47 million SLC
in 2020
Mauritania rank
66th
Nicaragua rank
69th

Total Expenditure in Agricultural R&D (Standard Local Currency) over time

  • Mauritania
  • Nicaragua
050100150200200420122020

How they compare

Mauritania currently reports 197.6 million SLC against 152.47 million SLC in Nicaragua, a difference of 45.13 million SLC.

That makes Mauritania's figure about 1.3 times Nicaragua's.

Across all 5 years both countries report, Mauritania has been ahead every year.

Mauritania ranks 66th and Nicaragua ranks 69th of 97 countries.

Mauritania has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher total expenditure in agricultural r&d (standard local currency), Mauritania or Nicaragua?
Mauritania, at 197.6 million SLC against 152.47 million SLC in Nicaragua as of 2016.
What is the difference in total expenditure in agricultural r&d (standard local currency) between Mauritania and Nicaragua?
45.13 million SLC, with Mauritania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Mauritania and Nicaragua?
5 years are reported by both, from 2012 to 2016.
How do Mauritania and Nicaragua rank globally for total expenditure in agricultural r&d (standard local currency)?
Mauritania ranks 66th and Nicaragua ranks 69th of 97 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Total Expenditure in Agricultural R&D (Standard Local Currency) — Government, Higher Education and Private Non-profit. 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

Mauritania vs Nicaragua: Total Expenditure in Agricultural R&D (Standard Local Currency). Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 17 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/total-expenditure-in-agricultural-r-and-d-standard-local-currency-total-government-higher/mauritania/nicaragua/

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/total-expenditure-in-agricultural-r-and-d-standard-local-currency-total-government-higher/mauritania/nicaragua/">Mauritania vs Nicaragua: Total Expenditure in Agricultural R&D (Standard Local Currency)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Total Expenditure in Agricultural R&D (Standard Local Currency) — Government, Higher Education and Private Non-profit
Unit
million SLC
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
98 places, 1,334 data points, 2004–2023
Last refreshed

The dataset contains a set of financial indicators describing national expenditures on agricultural research and development (R&D). The indicators are derived primarily from responses to the financial resources section of the ASTI questionnaire, complemented with selected external macroeconomic indicators required to ensure comparability across countries and over time.The dataset includes both directly reported financial aggregates and derived indicators, reflecting different dimensions of agricultural R&D investment. Reported expenditure data are collected in current local currency units (LCU) and refer to total institutional expenditures, as provided by national respondents. Coverage of the private for-profit sector remains limited and is therefore excluded from the dataset. To support temporal analysis and international comparability, expenditure indicators are also expressed in constant local currency units, using country-specific GDP deflators sourced from FAOSTAT. In addition, selected indicators relate agricultural R&D expenditures to key structural variables, such as agricultural value added, allowing for meaningful cross-country comparisons of research intensity and resource allocation.