Afghanistan vs Latvia: 11_SDR allocation
11_SDR allocation over time
- Afghanistan
- Latvia
How they compare
Afghanistan currently reports 618.72 million against 583.72 million in Latvia, a difference of 35.01 million.
That makes Afghanistan's figure about 1.1 times Latvia's.
Across all 36 years both countries report, Afghanistan has been ahead every year.
Afghanistan ranks 99th and Latvia ranks 102nd of 188 countries.
Afghanistan has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Afghanistan | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 37.20 million | 0 | 37.20 million | Afghanistan |
| 2000s | 38.21 million | 0 | 38.21 million | Afghanistan |
| 2010s | 228.08 million | 177.43 million | 50.65 million | Afghanistan |
| 2020s | 489.59 million | 449.97 million | 39.62 million | Afghanistan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher 11_sdr allocation, Afghanistan or Latvia?
- Afghanistan, at 618.72 million against 583.72 million in Latvia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in 11_sdr allocation between Afghanistan and Latvia?
- 35.01 million, with Afghanistan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Afghanistan and Latvia?
- 36 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2025.
- How do Afghanistan and Latvia rank globally for 11_sdr allocation?
- Afghanistan ranks 99th and Latvia ranks 102nd of 188 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- IMF, published as 11_SDR allocation. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
SDRs are international reserve assets created by the IMF and allocated to members to supplement existing official reserves. Holdings of SDRs by an IMF member are recorded as an asset, while the allocation of SDRs is recorded as the incurrence of a liability of the member receiving them. The membership of the SDR Department incurs the asset and liability position among themselves, not with the IMF. The holdings and allocations should be shown gross, rather than netted (Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual, sixth edition (BPM6)).