Pakistan vs Uganda: Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), per square

Pakistan
2,921 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Uganda
2,603 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Pakistan rank
37th
Uganda rank
38th

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

  • Pakistan
  • Uganda
02.0k4.0k6.0k197019962023

How they compare

Pakistan currently reports 2,921 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 2,603 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Uganda, a difference of 318 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes Pakistan's figure about 1.1 times Uganda's.

The two have swapped places 22 times across 54 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Pakistan ahead.

Pakistan ranks 37th and Uganda ranks 38th of 121 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Pakistan averaged higher in 3 and Uganda in 3.

Head to head by decade

Decade Pakistan Uganda Difference Ahead
1970s 122.1 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 28.28 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 93.82 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Pakistan
1980s 481.9 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 394.92 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 86.98 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Pakistan
1990s 965.12 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 864.47 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 100.65 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Pakistan
2000s 982.01 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 1,309 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 327.14 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Uganda
2010s 1,176 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 2,059 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 883.19 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Uganda
2020s 2,962 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 3,790 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 827.28 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Uganda

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square, Pakistan or Uganda?
Pakistan, at 2,921 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 2,603 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Uganda as of 2023.
What is the difference in net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square between Pakistan and Uganda?
318 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre, with Pakistan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Pakistan and Uganda?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Pakistan and Uganda rank globally for net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square?
Pakistan ranks 37th and Uganda ranks 38th of 121 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), 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

Pakistan vs Uganda: 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/pakistan/uganda/

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/pakistan/uganda/">Pakistan vs Uganda: 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.