Botswana vs Zimbabwe: Gross capital formation (current US$), per square kilometre

Botswana
10,325 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Zimbabwe
9,294 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Botswana rank
160th
Zimbabwe rank
162nd

Gross capital formation (current US$), per square kilometre over time

  • Botswana
  • Zimbabwe
05.0k10.0k15.0k20.0k196119922023

How they compare

Botswana currently reports 10,325 current US$ per square kilometre against 9,294 current US$ per square kilometre in Zimbabwe, a difference of 1,031 current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes Botswana's figure about 1.1 times Zimbabwe's.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Zimbabwe ahead.

Botswana ranks 160th and Zimbabwe ranks 162nd of 184 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Botswana averaged higher in 3 and Zimbabwe in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Botswana Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 18.94 current US$ per square kilometre 543.85 current US$ per square kilometre 524.91 current US$ per square kilometre Zimbabwe
1970s 248.42 current US$ per square kilometre 1,732 current US$ per square kilometre 1,484 current US$ per square kilometre Zimbabwe
1980s 808.22 current US$ per square kilometre 3,223 current US$ per square kilometre 2,414 current US$ per square kilometre Zimbabwe
1990s 2,319 current US$ per square kilometre 3,755 current US$ per square kilometre 1,437 current US$ per square kilometre Zimbabwe
2000s 4,284 current US$ per square kilometre 1,202 current US$ per square kilometre 3,082 current US$ per square kilometre Botswana
2010s 7,681 current US$ per square kilometre 7,394 current US$ per square kilometre 286.76 current US$ per square kilometre Botswana
2020s 9,406 current US$ per square kilometre 8,514 current US$ per square kilometre 892.58 current US$ per square kilometre Botswana

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher gross capital formation (current us$), per square kilometre, Botswana or Zimbabwe?
Botswana, at 10,325 current US$ per square kilometre against 9,294 current US$ per square kilometre in Zimbabwe as of 2023.
What is the difference in gross capital formation (current us$), per square kilometre between Botswana and Zimbabwe?
1,031 current US$ per square kilometre, with Botswana ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Botswana and Zimbabwe?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Botswana and Zimbabwe rank globally for gross capital formation (current us$), per square kilometre?
Botswana ranks 160th and Zimbabwe ranks 162nd of 184 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Gross capital formation (current US$), 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

Botswana vs Zimbabwe: Gross capital formation (current US$), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 10 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/gross-capital-formation-current-us-per-square-kilometre/botswana/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://economy.statizoid.com/compare/gross-capital-formation-current-us-per-square-kilometre/botswana/zimbabwe/">Botswana vs Zimbabwe: Gross capital formation (current US$), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Gross capital formation (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
227 places, 10,293 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Gross capital formation (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.