Expenditure linked to agriculture value
Comparing Gross national expenditure (current LCU) with Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant LCU), per capita across 170 countries, 2011–2025.
- Rank correlation
- +0.73
- Holding size constant
- +0.84
- Countries compared
- 170
- Period
- 2011–2025
What might link these
The relationship between gross national expenditure and the value added per capita from agriculture, forestry, and fishing might be influenced by a country's economic structure and sectoral contributions. A careful reader should consider the potential impact of urbanization or industrialization rates as a confounder. The connection could reflect broader economic health rather than a direct relationship between the two indicators.
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 could mislead by suggesting a direct link between national spending and agricultural productivity, rather than both being driven by underlying economic factors.
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.