Costa Rica vs Latvia: Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Belgium (current US$), gaps
Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Belgium (current US$), gaps over time
- Costa Rica
- Latvia
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 60,000 current US$ against 55,010 current US$ in Costa Rica, a difference of 4,990 current US$.
That makes Latvia's figure about 1.1 times Costa Rica's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 1996 it was Latvia ahead.
Costa Rica ranks 93rd and Latvia ranks 92nd of 151 countries.
Costa Rica has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Costa Rica | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 587,500 current US$ | 257,500 current US$ | 330,000 current US$ | Costa Rica |
| 2000s | 598,000 current US$ | 44,000 current US$ | 554,000 current US$ | Costa Rica |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, belgium (current us$), gaps, Costa Rica or Latvia?
- Latvia, at 60,000 current US$ against 55,010 current US$ in Costa Rica as of 2004.
- What is the difference in net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, belgium (current us$), gaps between Costa Rica and Latvia?
- 4,990 current US$, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Costa Rica and Latvia?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 1996 to 2004.
- How do Costa Rica and Latvia rank globally for net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, belgium (current us$), gaps?
- Costa Rica ranks 93rd and Latvia ranks 92nd of 151 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statizoid (derived), published as Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Belgium (current US$), gaps filled. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Belgium (current US$) with 345 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.