Belarus vs New Caledonia: Replacement-level fertility rate

Belarus
2.09
in 2010
New Caledonia
2.09
in 2010
Belarus rank
125th
New Caledonia rank
125th

Replacement-level fertility rate over time

  • Belarus
  • New Caledonia
0123195019802010

How they compare

Belarus currently reports 2.09 against 2.09 in New Caledonia, a difference of 0.

Across all 7 years both countries report, New Caledonia has been ahead every year.

Belarus ranks 125th and New Caledonia ranks 125th of 199 countries.

New Caledonia has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Belarus New Caledonia Difference Ahead
1950s 2.43 2.76 0.33 New Caledonia
1960s 2.18 2.46 0.28 New Caledonia
1970s 2.13 2.27 0.14 New Caledonia
1980s 2.11 2.16 0.05 New Caledonia
1990s 2.12 2.12 0
2000s 2.1 2.1 0
2010s 2.09 2.09 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher replacement-level fertility rate, Belarus or New Caledonia?
Belarus, at 2.09 against 2.09 in New Caledonia as of 2010.
What is the difference in replacement-level fertility rate between Belarus and New Caledonia?
0, with Belarus ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and New Caledonia?
7 years are reported by both, from 1950 to 2010.
How do Belarus and New Caledonia rank globally for replacement-level fertility rate?
Belarus ranks 125th and New Caledonia ranks 125th of 199 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Gietel-Basten and Scherbov (2020) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Replacement-level fertility rate. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Replacement-level fertility rate
Source
Gietel-Basten and Scherbov (2020) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
199 places, 1,393 data points, 1950–2010
Last refreshed

The replacement-level fertility rate (the total fertility rate needed to keep the population size stable over time, without migration) is commonly stated to be 2.1. But the level can vary based on the sex ratio, child mortality rates, and other factors.