Croatia vs Eswatini: Net official flows from UN agencies, UNTA (current US$), gaps filled
Croatia
570,000 current US$
in 2008
Eswatini
550,000 current US$
in 2008
Croatia rank
87th
Eswatini rank
90th
Net official flows from UN agencies, UNTA (current US$), gaps filled over time
- Croatia
- Eswatini
How they compare
Croatia currently reports 570,000 current US$ against 550,000 current US$ in Eswatini, a difference of 20,000 current US$.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 1994 it was Eswatini ahead.
Croatia ranks 87th and Eswatini ranks 90th of 172 countries.
Eswatini has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Croatia | Eswatini | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 406,667 current US$ | 1.25 million current US$ | 848,333 current US$ | Eswatini |
| 2000s | 695,556 current US$ | 1.42 million current US$ | 722,222 current US$ | Eswatini |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher net official flows from un agencies, unta (current us$), gaps filled, Croatia or Eswatini?
- Croatia, at 570,000 current US$ against 550,000 current US$ in Eswatini as of 2008.
- What is the difference in net official flows from un agencies, unta (current us$), gaps filled between Croatia and Eswatini?
- 20,000 current US$, with Croatia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Croatia and Eswatini?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 1994 to 2008.
- How do Croatia and Eswatini rank globally for net official flows from un agencies, unta (current us$), gaps filled?
- Croatia ranks 87th and Eswatini ranks 90th of 172 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statizoid (derived), published as Net official flows from UN agencies, UNTA (current US$), gaps filled. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Net official flows from UN agencies, UNTA (current US$) with 75 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.