Low & middle income vs Macau, China: Net official flows from UN agencies, UNHCR (current US$), per square

Low & middle income
9.99 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Macau, China
6,000 current US$ per square kilometre
in 1990
Low & middle income rank
3rd
Macau, China rank
1st

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

  • Low & middle income
  • Macau, China
050.0k100.0k150.0k200.0k196919962023

How they compare

Macau, China currently reports 6,000 current US$ per square kilometre against 9.99 current US$ per square kilometre in Low & middle income, a difference of 5,990 current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes Macau, China's figure about 600.5 times Low & middle income's.

Across all 16 years both countries report, Macau, China has been ahead every year.

Low & middle income ranks 3rd and Macau, China ranks 1st of 46 groups.

Macau, China has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Low & middle income Macau, China Difference Ahead
1960s 0.1094 current US$ per square kilometre 3,500 current US$ per square kilometre 3,500 current US$ per square kilometre Macau, China
1970s 0.4065 current US$ per square kilometre 5,833 current US$ per square kilometre 5,833 current US$ per square kilometre Macau, China
1980s 5.56 current US$ per square kilometre 42,000 current US$ per square kilometre 41,994 current US$ per square kilometre Macau, China
1990s 5.59 current US$ per square kilometre 6,000 current US$ per square kilometre 5,994 current US$ per square kilometre Macau, China

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher net official flows from un agencies, unhcr (current us$), per square, Low & middle income or Macau, China?
Macau, China, at 6,000 current US$ per square kilometre against 9.99 current US$ per square kilometre in Low & middle income as of 1990.
What is the difference in net official flows from un agencies, unhcr (current us$), per square between Low & middle income and Macau, China?
5,990 current US$ per square kilometre, with Macau, China ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Low & middle income and Macau, China?
16 years are reported by both, from 1969 to 1990.
How do Low & middle income and Macau, China rank globally for net official flows from un agencies, unhcr (current us$), per square?
Low & middle income ranks 3rd and Macau, China ranks 1st of 46 groups.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Net official flows from UN agencies, UNHCR (current US$), 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

Low & middle income vs Macau, China: Net official flows from UN agencies, UNHCR (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-unhcr-current-us-per-square-kilometre/low-and-middle-income/macao-sar-china/

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-unhcr-current-us-per-square-kilometre/low-and-middle-income/macao-sar-china/">Low & middle income vs Macau, China: Net official flows from UN agencies, UNHCR (current US$), per square</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Net official flows from UN agencies, UNHCR (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
174 places, 5,888 data points, 1969–2023
Last refreshed

Net official flows from UN agencies, UNHCR (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.