Colombia vs Morocco: Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), per square

Colombia
1,270 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Morocco
1,227 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Colombia rank
52nd
Morocco rank
53rd

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

  • Colombia
  • Morocco
-2.0k02.0k4.0k197019962023

How they compare

Colombia currently reports 1,270 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 1,227 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Morocco, a difference of 43 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 14 times across 54 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Colombia ahead.

Colombia ranks 52nd and Morocco ranks 53rd of 121 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Colombia averaged higher in 1 and Morocco in 5.

Head to head by decade

Decade Colombia Morocco Difference Ahead
1970s 74.27 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 134.42 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 60.15 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Morocco
1980s 295.43 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 579.62 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 284.18 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Morocco
1990s -39.94 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 628.22 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 668.16 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Morocco
2000s 716.58 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 546.29 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 170.29 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Colombia
2010s 726.76 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 2,065 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 1,338 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Morocco
2020s 2,151 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 2,443 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 291.97 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Morocco

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square, Colombia or Morocco?
Colombia, at 1,270 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 1,227 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Morocco as of 2023.
What is the difference in net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square between Colombia and Morocco?
43 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre, with Colombia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Colombia and Morocco?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Colombia and Morocco rank globally for net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square?
Colombia ranks 52nd and Morocco ranks 53rd of 121 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), 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

Colombia vs Morocco: Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), per square. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 25 August 2026, from https://debt.statizoid.com/compare/net-financial-flows-multilateral-nfl-current-us-per-square-kilometre/colombia/morocco/

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-multilateral-nfl-current-us-per-square-kilometre/colombia/morocco/">Colombia vs Morocco: Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), per square</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Net financial flows, multilateral (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
133 places, 6,126 data points, 1970–2023
Last refreshed

Net financial flows, multilateral (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.