Low income vs Malawi: Net financial flows, IDA (NFL, current US$), per square kilometre

Low income
183.35 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Malawi
2,317 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Low income rank
15th
Malawi rank
15th

Net financial flows, IDA (NFL, current US$), per square kilometre over time

  • Low income
  • Malawi
05001.0k1.5k2.0k2.5k197019962023

How they compare

Malawi currently reports 2,317 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 183.35 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Low income, a difference of 2,134 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes Malawi's figure about 12.6 times Low income's.

Across all 54 years both countries report, Malawi has been ahead every year.

Low income ranks 15th and Malawi ranks 15th of 37 groups.

Malawi has averaged higher in every one of the 6 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Low income Malawi Difference Ahead
1970s 10.21 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 111.05 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 100.84 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Malawi
1980s 55.53 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 491.22 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 435.69 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Malawi
1990s 78.01 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 1,018 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 939.57 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Malawi
2000s 97.06 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 469.11 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 372.05 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Malawi
2010s 86.45 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 880.08 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 793.63 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Malawi
2020s 130.43 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 1,639 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 1,508 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Malawi

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher net financial flows, ida (nfl, current us$), per square kilometre, Low income or Malawi?
Malawi, at 2,317 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 183.35 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Low income as of 2023.
What is the difference in net financial flows, ida (nfl, current us$), per square kilometre between Low income and Malawi?
2,134 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre, with Malawi ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Low income and Malawi?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Low income and Malawi rank globally for net financial flows, ida (nfl, current us$), per square kilometre?
Low income ranks 15th and Malawi ranks 15th of 37 groups.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Net financial flows, IDA (NFL, current US$), 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 income vs Malawi: Net financial flows, IDA (NFL, current US$), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 25 August 2026, from https://debt.statizoid.com/compare/net-financial-flows-ida-nfl-current-us-per-square-kilometre/low-income/malawi/

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://debt.statizoid.com/compare/net-financial-flows-ida-nfl-current-us-per-square-kilometre/low-income/malawi/">Low income vs Malawi: Net financial flows, IDA (NFL, current US$), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Net financial flows, IDA (NFL, current US$), per square kilometre
Unit
NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
151 places, 6,729 data points, 1970–2023
Last refreshed

Net financial flows, IDA (NFL, 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.