Colombia vs Tunisia: Final consumption expenditure (current US$), per square kilometre

Colombia
291,462 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Tunisia
303,586 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Colombia rank
107th
Tunisia rank
106th

Final consumption expenditure (current US$), per square kilometre over time

  • Colombia
  • Tunisia
0100.0k200.0k300.0k196119922023

How they compare

Tunisia currently reports 303,586 current US$ per square kilometre against 291,462 current US$ per square kilometre in Colombia, a difference of 12,124 current US$ per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 59 shared years of data; in 1965 it was Tunisia ahead.

Colombia ranks 107th and Tunisia ranks 106th of 185 countries.

Tunisia has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Colombia Tunisia Difference Ahead
1960s 4,398 current US$ per square kilometre 4,891 current US$ per square kilometre 492.34 current US$ per square kilometre Tunisia
1970s 10,473 current US$ per square kilometre 18,863 current US$ per square kilometre 8,391 current US$ per square kilometre Tunisia
1980s 26,525 current US$ per square kilometre 44,478 current US$ per square kilometre 17,952 current US$ per square kilometre Tunisia
1990s 58,227 current US$ per square kilometre 87,562 current US$ per square kilometre 29,335 current US$ per square kilometre Tunisia
2000s 110,763 current US$ per square kilometre 161,363 current US$ per square kilometre 50,600 current US$ per square kilometre Tunisia
2010s 242,045 current US$ per square kilometre 254,900 current US$ per square kilometre 12,854 current US$ per square kilometre Tunisia
2020s 258,413 current US$ per square kilometre 282,646 current US$ per square kilometre 24,234 current US$ per square kilometre Tunisia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher final consumption expenditure (current us$), per square kilometre, Colombia or Tunisia?
Tunisia, at 303,586 current US$ per square kilometre against 291,462 current US$ per square kilometre in Colombia as of 2023.
What is the difference in final consumption expenditure (current us$), per square kilometre between Colombia and Tunisia?
12,124 current US$ per square kilometre, with Tunisia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Colombia and Tunisia?
59 years are reported by both, from 1965 to 2023.
How do Colombia and Tunisia rank globally for final consumption expenditure (current us$), per square kilometre?
Colombia ranks 107th and Tunisia ranks 106th of 185 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Final consumption expenditure (current US$), 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 Tunisia: Final consumption expenditure (current US$), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 10 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/final-consumption-expenditure-current-us-per-square-kilometre/colombia/tunisia/

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://economy.statizoid.com/compare/final-consumption-expenditure-current-us-per-square-kilometre/colombia/tunisia/">Colombia vs Tunisia: Final consumption expenditure (current US$), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Final consumption expenditure (current US$), per square kilometre
Unit
current US$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
228 places, 10,484 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Final consumption expenditure (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.