Cameroon vs Malawi: Gross public investment
Gross public investment over time
- Cameroon
- Malawi
How they compare
Malawi currently reports 6.9% against 6.5% in Cameroon, a difference of 0.4%.
That makes Malawi's figure about 1.1 times Cameroon's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 35 shared years of data; in 1977 it was Malawi ahead.
Cameroon ranks 31st and Malawi ranks 28th of 49 countries.
Malawi has averaged higher in every one of the 5 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cameroon | Malawi | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970s | 4.3% | 16.9% | 12.6% | Malawi |
| 1980s | 6.9% | 9.5% | 2.5% | Malawi |
| 1990s | 2.9% | 9.2% | 6.3% | Malawi |
| 2000s | 3.0% | 8.6% | 5.6% | Malawi |
| 2010s | 5.3% | 8.2% | 2.9% | Malawi |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher gross public investment, Cameroon or Malawi?
- Malawi, at 6.9% against 6.5% in Cameroon as of 2011.
- What is the difference in gross public investment between Cameroon and Malawi?
- 0.4%, with Malawi ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cameroon and Malawi?
- 35 years are reported by both, from 1977 to 2011.
- How do Cameroon and Malawi rank globally for gross public investment?
- Cameroon ranks 31st and Malawi ranks 28th of 49 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files, published as Gross public investment (% of GDP). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Gross public investment (see definition below) as a percentage of GDP (%) . Public sectors’ gross domestic fixed investment (gross fixed capital formation) comprises all additions to the stocks of fixed assets (purchases and own-account capital formation), less any sales of second-hand and scrapped fixed assets measured at constant prices, done by government units and non-financial public enterprises. Most outlays by government on military equipment are excluded. According to 1993 SNA are outlays on weapons and equipment with no alternative civil use treated as intermediate consumption, and part of governments consumption expenditure.