Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP in Sweden
Sweden: Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP was 0 current LCU in 2025. ◆ Volatile
Latest (2025)
0 current LCU
World rank
76th
of 185 countries
All-time high
0 current LCU
in 1993
All-time low
-34.85 billion current LCU
in 1990
Years of data
66
1960–2025
Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP in Sweden, 1960–2025
Source: Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks. Measured in current LCU.
Analysis
Sweden recorded 0 current LCU for discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp in 2025. That is the highest value across all 66 years on record.
Over the whole period, discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp in Sweden peaked at 0 current LCU in 1993 and was at its lowest, -34.85 billion current LCU, in 1990.
Sweden ranks 76th of 185 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.
The series is highly variable year to year, so single readings are best treated with caution.
Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP in Sweden, year by year
| Year | current LCU | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1960 | -2.86 billion current LCU | — |
| 1961 | -3.00 billion current LCU | +4.8% |
| 1962 | -3.21 billion current LCU | +6.9% |
| 1963 | -3.45 billion current LCU | +7.6% |
| 1964 | -4.38 billion current LCU | +27.0% |
| 1965 | -5.05 billion current LCU | +15.2% |
| 1966 | -5.06 billion current LCU | +0.3% |
| 1967 | -5.12 billion current LCU | +1.2% |
| 1968 | -5.06 billion current LCU | -1.3% |
| 1969 | -5.54 billion current LCU | +9.6% |
| 1970 | -6.55 billion current LCU | +18.2% |
| 1971 | -5.61 billion current LCU | -14.4% |
| 1972 | -5.64 billion current LCU | +0.6% |
| 1973 | -5.56 billion current LCU | -1.4% |
| 1974 | -8.08 billion current LCU | +45.3% |
| 1975 | -9.75 billion current LCU | +20.7% |
| 1976 | -10.58 billion current LCU | +8.6% |
| 1977 | -8.33 billion current LCU | -21.3% |
| 1978 | -5.45 billion current LCU | -34.6% |
| 1979 | -9.19 billion current LCU | +68.7% |
| 1980 | -11.33 billion current LCU | +23.2% |
| 1981 | -7.24 billion current LCU | -36.1% |
| 1982 | -7.01 billion current LCU | -3.2% |
| 1983 | -6.83 billion current LCU | -2.6% |
| 1984 | -9.19 billion current LCU | +34.6% |
| 1985 | -15.22 billion current LCU | +65.6% |
| 1986 | -12.90 billion current LCU | -15.3% |
| 1987 | -17.14 billion current LCU | +32.9% |
| 1988 | -22.09 billion current LCU | +28.9% |
| 1989 | -32.79 billion current LCU | +48.5% |
| 1990 | -34.85 billion current LCU | +6.3% |
| 1991 | -22.23 billion current LCU | -36.2% |
| 1992 | -15.40 billion current LCU | -30.7% |
| 1993 | 0 current LCU | -100.0% |
| 1994 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 1995 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 1996 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 1997 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 1998 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 1999 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2000 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2001 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2002 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2003 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2004 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2005 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2006 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2007 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2008 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2009 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2010 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2011 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2012 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2013 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2014 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2015 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2016 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2017 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2018 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2019 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2020 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2021 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2022 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2023 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2024 | 0 current LCU | — |
| 2025 | 0 current LCU | — |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | -4.27 billion current LCU | -5.54 billion current LCU | -2.86 billion current LCU | 10 |
| 1970s | -7.47 billion current LCU | -10.58 billion current LCU | -5.45 billion current LCU | 10 |
| 1980s | -14.17 billion current LCU | -32.79 billion current LCU | -6.83 billion current LCU | 10 |
| 1990s | -7.25 billion current LCU | -34.85 billion current LCU | 0 current LCU | 10 |
| 2000s | 0 current LCU | 0 current LCU | 0 current LCU | 10 |
| 2010s | 0 current LCU | 0 current LCU | 0 current LCU | 10 |
| 2020s | 0 current LCU | 0 current LCU | 0 current LCU | 6 |
Countries ranked near Sweden
- 73 Senegal 0.0293 current LCU compare
- 74 Ethiopia 0.0112 current LCU compare
- 75 Greenland 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Albania 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Angola 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Armenia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Belgium 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Benin 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Bolivia, Plurinational State of 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Brazil 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Bulgaria 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Burkina Faso 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Colombia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Comoros 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Croatia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Czechia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Denmark 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Ecuador 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Egypt 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Eswatini 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Georgia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Germany 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Guinea-Bissau 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Hong Kong 0 current LCU
- 76 Hungary 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Iceland 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Israel 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Japan 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Latvia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Macao 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Malawi 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Malta 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Mauritania 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Morocco 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Netherlands 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Panama 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Papua New Guinea 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Peru 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Poland 0 current LCU
- 76 Portugal 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Romania 0 current LCU compare
- 76 San Marino 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Slovakia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Slovenia 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Spain 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Switzerland 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Togo 0 current LCU compare
- 76 Ukraine 0 current LCU compare
More economy & growth data for Sweden
- Africa's Development Dynamics (AfDD) Table 04 - Annual real GDP 1.62 Percent per annum (2029)
- Africa's Development Dynamics (AfDD) Table 02 - Annual real GDP 2.12 Percent per annum (2029)
- Services, value added (current US$), annual growth rate 11.52 % change on previous year (2025)
- Services, value added (current US$), per unit of GDP 0.6703 current US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Services, value added (current US$), per capita 42,317 current US$ per person (2025)
- Services, value added (current LCU), annual growth rate 3.64 % change on previous year (2025)
- Services, value added (current LCU), per unit of GDP 6.58 current LCU per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Services, value added (current LCU), per capita 415,580 current LCU per person (2025)
- Services, value added (constant 2015 US$), annual growth rate 2.04 % change on previous year (2025)
- Services, value added (constant 2015 US$), per unit of GDP 0.5856 constant 2015 US$ per US$ of GDP (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp in Sweden?
- Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp in Sweden was 0 current LCU in 2025, according to Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks.
- What is the highest discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp recorded in Sweden?
- The highest recorded value was 0 current LCU in 1993.
- What is the lowest discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp recorded in Sweden?
- The lowest recorded value was -34.85 billion current LCU in 1990.
- How does Sweden rank for discrepancy in expenditure estimate of gdp?
- Sweden ranks 76th out of 185 countries with data for 2025.
- Where does this Sweden data come from?
- The figures come from Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks, published as part of Discrepancy in expenditure estimate of GDP (current LCU). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 66 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
Although the SNA ensures there is perfect consistency between the three measures of GDP, this is a conceptual consistency that in general does not emerge naturally from data compilations. This is because of the wide disparity of data sources that must be called on and the fact that any error in any source will lead to a difference between at least two of the GDP measures. In practice it is inevitable that many such data errors will exist and will become apparent in exercises such as the balancing of supply and use tables. This indicator is expressed in current prices, meaning no adjustment has been made to account for price changes over time. This series is expressed in local currency units.