Papua New Guinea vs Zimbabwe: Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per square kilometre

Papua New Guinea
1.73 units per square kilometre
in 2023
Zimbabwe
1.14 units per square kilometre
in 2023
Papua New Guinea rank
158th
Zimbabwe rank
159th

Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per square kilometre over time

  • Papua New Guinea
  • Zimbabwe
05101520196119922023

How they compare

Papua New Guinea currently reports 1.73 units per square kilometre against 1.14 units per square kilometre in Zimbabwe, a difference of 0.59 units per square kilometre.

That makes Papua New Guinea's figure about 1.5 times Zimbabwe's.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Zimbabwe ahead.

Papua New Guinea ranks 158th and Zimbabwe ranks 159th of 189 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Papua New Guinea averaged higher in 5 and Zimbabwe in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Papua New Guinea Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 0 units per square kilometre 0 units per square kilometre 0 units per square kilometre
1970s 0.6923 units per square kilometre 0 units per square kilometre 0.6923 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
1980s 12.51 units per square kilometre 0.0818 units per square kilometre 12.43 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
1990s 0.1279 units per square kilometre 0.3955 units per square kilometre 0.2676 units per square kilometre Zimbabwe
2000s 1.25 units per square kilometre 1.23 units per square kilometre 0.0255 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
2010s 1.43 units per square kilometre 1.23 units per square kilometre 0.1966 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
2020s 1.57 units per square kilometre 1.17 units per square kilometre 0.4 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher reserve position in the imf, us dollar, per square kilometre, Papua New Guinea or Zimbabwe?
Papua New Guinea, at 1.73 units per square kilometre against 1.14 units per square kilometre in Zimbabwe as of 2023.
What is the difference in reserve position in the imf, us dollar, per square kilometre between Papua New Guinea and Zimbabwe?
0.59 units per square kilometre, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Zimbabwe?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Papua New Guinea and Zimbabwe rank globally for reserve position in the imf, us dollar, per square kilometre?
Papua New Guinea ranks 158th and Zimbabwe ranks 159th of 189 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, 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

Papua New Guinea vs Zimbabwe: Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 10 September 2026, from https://financial-sector.statizoid.com/compare/reserve-position-in-the-imf-us-dollar-per-square-kilometre/papua-new-guinea/zimbabwe/

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://financial-sector.statizoid.com/compare/reserve-position-in-the-imf-us-dollar-per-square-kilometre/papua-new-guinea/zimbabwe/">Papua New Guinea vs Zimbabwe: Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per square kilometre
Unit
units per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
191 places, 10,792 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar 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.