Hong Kong vs Trinidad and Tobago: Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Australia … Australia square

Hong Kong
114.29 current US$ per square kilometre
in 1996
Trinidad and Tobago
93.57 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2010
Hong Kong rank
31st
Trinidad and Tobago rank
32nd

Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Australia … Australia square over time

  • Hong Kong
  • Trinidad and Tobago
02.5k5.0k7.5k10.0k12.5k196519872010

How they compare

Hong Kong currently reports 114.29 current US$ per square kilometre against 93.57 current US$ per square kilometre in Trinidad and Tobago, a difference of 20.72 current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes Hong Kong's figure about 1.2 times Trinidad and Tobago's.

Across all 14 years both countries report, Hong Kong has been ahead every year.

Hong Kong ranks 31st and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 32nd of 160 countries.

Hong Kong has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Hong Kong Trinidad and Tobago Difference Ahead
1960s 14.71 current US$ per square kilometre 1.95 current US$ per square kilometre 12.76 current US$ per square kilometre Hong Kong
1970s 21.81 current US$ per square kilometre 3.31 current US$ per square kilometre 18.5 current US$ per square kilometre Hong Kong
1980s 60 current US$ per square kilometre 1.95 current US$ per square kilometre 58.05 current US$ per square kilometre Hong Kong
1990s 808.08 current US$ per square kilometre 1.95 current US$ per square kilometre 806.13 current US$ per square kilometre Hong Kong

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, australia (current us$), per, Hong Kong or Trinidad and Tobago?
Hong Kong, at 114.29 current US$ per square kilometre against 93.57 current US$ per square kilometre in Trinidad and Tobago as of 1996.
What is the difference in net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, australia (current us$), per between Hong Kong and Trinidad and Tobago?
20.72 current US$ per square kilometre, with Hong Kong ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong and Trinidad and Tobago?
14 years are reported by both, from 1968 to 1994.
How do Hong Kong and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, australia (current us$), per?
Hong Kong ranks 31st and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 32nd of 160 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Australia (current US$), per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Hong Kong vs Trinidad and Tobago: Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Australia (current US$), per. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 09 November 2026, from https://aid.statizoid.com/compare/net-bilateral-aid-flows-from-dac-donors-australia-current-us-per-square-kilometre/hong-kong-sar-china/trinidad-and-tobago/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://aid.statizoid.com/compare/net-bilateral-aid-flows-from-dac-donors-australia-current-us-per-square-kilometre/hong-kong-sar-china/trinidad-and-tobago/">Hong Kong vs Trinidad and Tobago: Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Australia (current US$), per</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Australia (current US$), per square kilometre
Unit
current US$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
206 places, 7,203 data points, 1965–2023
Last refreshed

Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Australia (current US$) divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.