Latvia vs Malawi: Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Sweden (current US$), gaps
Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Sweden (current US$), gaps over time
- Latvia
- Malawi
How they compare
Malawi currently reports 6.30 million current US$ against 5.73 million current US$ in Latvia, a difference of 566,740 current US$.
That makes Malawi's figure about 1.1 times Latvia's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 14 shared years of data; in 1991 it was Latvia ahead.
Latvia ranks 51st and Malawi ranks 49th of 142 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Latvia averaged higher in 1 and Malawi in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Malawi | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 10.08 million current US$ | 2.07 million current US$ | 8.01 million current US$ | Latvia |
| 2000s | 7.92 million current US$ | 8.97 million current US$ | 1.04 million current US$ | Malawi |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, sweden (current us$), gaps, Latvia or Malawi?
- Malawi, at 6.30 million current US$ against 5.73 million current US$ in Latvia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, sweden (current us$), gaps between Latvia and Malawi?
- 566,740 current US$, with Malawi ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Malawi?
- 14 years are reported by both, from 1991 to 2004.
- How do Latvia and Malawi rank globally for net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, sweden (current us$), gaps?
- Latvia ranks 51st and Malawi ranks 49th of 142 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statizoid (derived), published as Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Sweden (current US$), 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, Sweden (current US$) with 332 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.