Guyana vs Zambia: Taxes less subsidies on products (current US$), per square kilometre

Guyana
2,356 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Zambia
2,168 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Guyana rank
166th
Zambia rank
168th

Taxes less subsidies on products (current US$), per square kilometre over time

  • Guyana
  • Zambia
01.0k2.0k3.0k196119922023

How they compare

Guyana currently reports 2,356 current US$ per square kilometre against 2,168 current US$ per square kilometre in Zambia, a difference of 188 current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes Guyana's figure about 1.1 times Zambia's.

The two have swapped places 9 times across 59 shared years of data; in 1965 it was Zambia ahead.

Guyana ranks 166th and Zambia ranks 168th of 195 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Guyana averaged higher in 1 and Zambia in 6.

Head to head by decade

Decade Guyana Zambia Difference Ahead
1960s 138.9 current US$ per square kilometre 162.22 current US$ per square kilometre 23.32 current US$ per square kilometre Zambia
1970s 203.17 current US$ per square kilometre 293.77 current US$ per square kilometre 90.6 current US$ per square kilometre Zambia
1980s 344.7 current US$ per square kilometre 417.09 current US$ per square kilometre 72.39 current US$ per square kilometre Zambia
1990s 440.92 current US$ per square kilometre 548.33 current US$ per square kilometre 107.41 current US$ per square kilometre Zambia
2000s 704.31 current US$ per square kilometre 1,101 current US$ per square kilometre 397.18 current US$ per square kilometre Zambia
2010s 1,808 current US$ per square kilometre 2,017 current US$ per square kilometre 208.25 current US$ per square kilometre Zambia
2020s 2,313 current US$ per square kilometre 1,645 current US$ per square kilometre 667.66 current US$ per square kilometre Guyana

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher taxes less subsidies on products (current us$), per square kilometre, Guyana or Zambia?
Guyana, at 2,356 current US$ per square kilometre against 2,168 current US$ per square kilometre in Zambia as of 2023.
What is the difference in taxes less subsidies on products (current us$), per square kilometre between Guyana and Zambia?
188 current US$ per square kilometre, with Guyana ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guyana and Zambia?
59 years are reported by both, from 1965 to 2023.
How do Guyana and Zambia rank globally for taxes less subsidies on products (current us$), per square kilometre?
Guyana ranks 166th and Zambia ranks 168th of 195 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Taxes less subsidies on products (current US$), 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

Guyana vs Zambia: Taxes less subsidies on products (current US$), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 11 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/taxes-less-subsidies-on-products-current-us-per-square-kilometre/guyana/zambia/

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/taxes-less-subsidies-on-products-current-us-per-square-kilometre/guyana/zambia/">Guyana vs Zambia: Taxes less subsidies on products (current US$), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Taxes less subsidies on products (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
196 places, 7,863 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Taxes less subsidies on products (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.