Australia vs Kazakhstan: Fertility and female labor force participation, gaps filled
Australia
63.16
in 2025
Kazakhstan
63.3
in 2022
Australia rank
41st
Kazakhstan rank
39th
Fertility and female labor force participation, gaps filled over time
- Australia
- Kazakhstan
How they compare
Kazakhstan currently reports 63.3 against 63.16 in Australia, a difference of 0.14.
Across all 21 years both countries report, Kazakhstan has been ahead every year.
Australia ranks 41st and Kazakhstan ranks 39th of 194 countries.
Kazakhstan has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | Kazakhstan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 57.09 | 65.58 | 8.49 | Kazakhstan |
| 2010s | 59.35 | 65.39 | 6.04 | Kazakhstan |
| 2020s | 61.37 | 63.5 | 2.13 | Kazakhstan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher fertility and female labor force participation, gaps filled, Australia or Kazakhstan?
- Kazakhstan, at 63.3 against 63.16 in Australia as of 2022.
- What is the difference in fertility and female labor force participation, gaps filled between Australia and Kazakhstan?
- 0.14, with Kazakhstan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Kazakhstan?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2002 to 2022.
- How do Australia and Kazakhstan rank globally for fertility and female labor force participation, gaps filled?
- Australia ranks 41st and Kazakhstan ranks 39th of 194 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statizoid (derived), published as Fertility and female labor force participation, gaps filled. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Fertility and female labor force participation with 782 missing years estimated by linear interpolation between the nearest real observations. Only gaps of 4 years or fewer are filled, and never beyond the first or last actual measurement — these are filled holes, not forecasts.