Consumption linked to agriculture value
Comparing Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (current LCU), per unit of GDP with Households and NPISHs Final consumption expenditure (constant LCU), per unit of GDP across 169 countries, 2011–2025.
- Rank correlation
- +0.90
- Holding size constant
- +0.88
- Countries compared
- 169
- Period
- 2011–2025
What might link these
The strong correlation might be due to countries with larger agricultural sectors having more disposable income, which in turn fuels household consumption. However, a careful reader should consider the potential impact of urbanization rates, as countries with higher urbanization might have different consumption patterns. Climate could also be a confounder, influencing both agriculture and consumption habits.
Why this is not proof of anything
This is a correlation across countries, not an experiment. It cannot show that either indicator causes the other, and both may simply follow a third thing. This correlation might mislead by implying a direct relationship between agricultural production and consumption, when in fact other economic or environmental factors could be driving the link.
The second figure above repeats the measurement with national population and income held constant. It is the more conservative number: a relationship that largely disappears there was mostly telling you that larger, richer countries have more of most things.
How this was measured
Both indicators were ranked across every country reporting each, and the two rankings compared — ranks rather than raw values, because a handful of very large countries can otherwise manufacture a relationship on their own. The calculation is arithmetic over figures already published on this site; the commentary above is drafted from the two indicator names and the resulting coefficients.