Barbados vs Turks and Caicos Islands: Net official flows from UN agencies, UNDP (current US$), per square

Barbados
581.39 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2010
Turks and Caicos Islands
463.16 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2002
Barbados rank
9th
Turks and Caicos Islands rank
11th

Net official flows from UN agencies, UNDP (current US$), per square over time

  • Barbados
  • Turks and Caicos Islands
01.0k2.0k3.0k196819892010

How they compare

Barbados currently reports 581.39 current US$ per square kilometre against 463.16 current US$ per square kilometre in Turks and Caicos Islands, a difference of 118.23 current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes Barbados's figure about 1.3 times Turks and Caicos Islands's.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 25 shared years of data; in 1974 it was Barbados ahead.

Barbados ranks 9th and Turks and Caicos Islands ranks 11th of 175 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Barbados Turks and Caicos Islands Difference Ahead
1970s 1,337 current US$ per square kilometre 61.4 current US$ per square kilometre 1,276 current US$ per square kilometre Barbados
1980s 867.44 current US$ per square kilometre 209.47 current US$ per square kilometre 657.97 current US$ per square kilometre Barbados
1990s 348.84 current US$ per square kilometre 106.58 current US$ per square kilometre 242.26 current US$ per square kilometre Barbados
2000s 23.26 current US$ per square kilometre 21.05 current US$ per square kilometre 2.2 current US$ per square kilometre Barbados

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher net official flows from un agencies, undp (current us$), per square, Barbados or Turks and Caicos Islands?
Barbados, at 581.39 current US$ per square kilometre against 463.16 current US$ per square kilometre in Turks and Caicos Islands as of 2010.
What is the difference in net official flows from un agencies, undp (current us$), per square between Barbados and Turks and Caicos Islands?
118.23 current US$ per square kilometre, with Barbados ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Barbados and Turks and Caicos Islands?
25 years are reported by both, from 1974 to 2000.
How do Barbados and Turks and Caicos Islands rank globally for net official flows from un agencies, undp (current us$), per square?
Barbados ranks 9th and Turks and Caicos Islands ranks 11th of 175 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Net official flows from UN agencies, UNDP (current US$), 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

Barbados vs Turks and Caicos Islands: Net official flows from UN agencies, UNDP (current US$), per square. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 06 September 2026, from https://aid.statizoid.com/compare/net-official-flows-from-un-agencies-undp-current-us-per-square-kilometre/barbados/turks-and-caicos-islands/

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-official-flows-from-un-agencies-undp-current-us-per-square-kilometre/barbados/turks-and-caicos-islands/">Barbados vs Turks and Caicos Islands: Net official flows from UN agencies, UNDP (current US$), per square</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Net official flows from UN agencies, UNDP (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
222 places, 9,643 data points, 1968–2023
Last refreshed

Net official flows from UN agencies, UNDP (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.