Rubber — Other uses in Hungary
Hungary: Rubber — Other uses was 28,763 t in 2013. ▼ Falling
Rubber — Other uses in Hungary, 1961–2013
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Measured in t.
Analysis
In 2013, rubber — other uses in Hungary stood at 28,763 t.
That represents a change of down 0.4% on the previous year and up 109.4% over ten years.
Over the whole period, rubber — other uses in Hungary peaked at 28,893 t in 2012 and was at its lowest, 4,300 t, in 1991.
Hungary ranks 37th of 151 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently falling across the 53 years of available data.
Rubber — Other uses in Hungary, year by year
| Year | t | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1961 | 12,683 t | — |
| 1962 | 13,501 t | +6.4% |
| 1963 | 14,900 t | +10.4% |
| 1964 | 15,725 t | +5.5% |
| 1965 | 16,008 t | +1.8% |
| 1966 | 17,498 t | +9.3% |
| 1967 | 17,756 t | +1.5% |
| 1968 | 17,054 t | -4.0% |
| 1969 | 16,737 t | -1.9% |
| 1970 | 17,598 t | +5.1% |
| 1971 | 22,268 t | +26.5% |
| 1972 | 20,184 t | -9.4% |
| 1973 | 16,577 t | -17.9% |
| 1974 | 22,584 t | +36.2% |
| 1975 | 19,322 t | -14.4% |
| 1976 | 15,707 t | -18.7% |
| 1977 | 16,089 t | +2.4% |
| 1978 | 17,156 t | +6.6% |
| 1979 | 14,445 t | -15.8% |
| 1980 | 18,371 t | +27.2% |
| 1981 | 14,540 t | -20.9% |
| 1982 | 12,275 t | -15.6% |
| 1983 | 16,364 t | +33.3% |
| 1984 | 16,155 t | -1.3% |
| 1985 | 13,021 t | -19.4% |
| 1986 | 14,475 t | +11.2% |
| 1987 | 14,575 t | +0.7% |
| 1988 | 12,863 t | -11.7% |
| 1989 | 14,225 t | +10.6% |
| 1990 | 9,482 t | -33.3% |
| 1991 | 4,300 t | -54.7% |
| 1992 | 5,477 t | +27.4% |
| 1993 | 4,885 t | -10.8% |
| 1994 | 5,821 t | +19.2% |
| 1995 | 6,064 t | +4.2% |
| 1996 | 7,128 t | +17.5% |
| 1997 | 4,680 t | -34.3% |
| 1998 | 9,377 t | +100.4% |
| 1999 | 13,653 t | +45.6% |
| 2000 | 18,465 t | +35.2% |
| 2001 | 16,572 t | -10.3% |
| 2002 | 14,584 t | -12.0% |
| 2003 | 13,736 t | -5.8% |
| 2004 | 16,855 t | +22.7% |
| 2005 | 14,963 t | -11.2% |
| 2006 | 10,711 t | -28.4% |
| 2007 | 16,073 t | +50.1% |
| 2008 | 13,668 t | -15.0% |
| 2009 | 16,117 t | +17.9% |
| 2010 | 12,263 t | -23.9% |
| 2011 | 25,670 t | +109.3% |
| 2012 | 28,893 t | +12.6% |
| 2013 | 28,763 t | -0.4% |
Hungary compared with similar countries
- Hungary's 28,763 t is above the median for high income countries, which is 2,528 t, 11.4× the median. (49 countries reporting)
- Hungary's 28,763 t is above the median for Europe & Central Asia, which is 1,860 t, 15.5× the median. (40 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 15,762 t | 12,683 t | 17,756 t | 9 |
| 1970s | 18,193 t | 14,445 t | 22,584 t | 10 |
| 1980s | 14,686 t | 12,275 t | 18,371 t | 10 |
| 1990s | 7,087 t | 4,300 t | 13,653 t | 10 |
| 2000s | 15,174 t | 10,711 t | 18,465 t | 10 |
| 2010s | 23,897 t | 12,263 t | 28,893 t | 4 |
Countries ranked near Hungary
- 34 Czechoslovakia 31,500 t compare
- 35 C�te d'Ivoire 30,984 t compare
- 36 Pakistan 28,933 t compare
- 38 Luxembourg 27,341 t compare
- 39 Egypt 24,865 t compare
- 40 Ecuador 24,411 t compare
More agriculture & rural data for Hungary
- Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (current US$), annual 8.23 % change on previous year (2025)
- Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (current US$), per 0.0265 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (current US$), per 687.58 current US$ per person (2025)
- Rural population, annual growth rate -1.18 % change on previous year (2025)
- Rural population, per unit of GDP 0 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Rural population, per capita 0.2931 units per person (2025)
- Share of GDP from agriculture 2.7% (2025)
- Agriculture as a share of GDP vs. GDP per capita 2.7% (2025)
- Agricultural raw materials exports 0.5% (2025)
- Agricultural raw materials imports 0.8% (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is rubber — other uses in Hungary?
- Rubber — other uses in Hungary was 28,763 t in 2013, according to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
- What is the highest rubber — other uses recorded in Hungary?
- The highest recorded value was 28,893 t in 2012.
- What is the lowest rubber — other uses recorded in Hungary?
- The lowest recorded value was 4,300 t in 1991.
- How does Hungary rank for rubber — other uses?
- Hungary ranks 37th out of 151 countries with data for 2013.
- Is rubber — other uses rising or falling in Hungary?
- Over the last ten years it is up 109.4%. The long-run trend across the full record is falling.
- Where does this Hungary data come from?
- The figures come from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as part of Rubber — Other uses (non-food). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 53 observations, free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO).
About this data
Food Balance Sheet presents a comprehensive picture of the pattern of a country's food supply during a specified reference period. The food balance sheet shows for each food item - i.e. each primary commodity and a number of processed commodities potentially available for human consumption - the sources of supply and its utilization. The total quantity of foodstuffs produced in a country added to the total quantity imported and adjusted to any change in stocks that may have occurred since the beginning of the reference period gives the supply available during that period. On the utilization side a distinction is made between the quantities exported, fed to livestock, used for seed, put to manufacture for food use and non-food uses, losses during storage and transportation, and food supplies available for human consumption. The per caput supply of each such food item available for human consumption is then obtained by dividing the respective quantity by the related data on the population actually partaking of it. Data on per caput food supplies are expressed in terms of quantity and - by applying appropriate food composition factors for all primary and processed products - also in terms of caloric value and protein and fat content.