Denmark vs South Africa: 11_SDR allocation
11_SDR allocation over time
- Denmark
- South Africa
How they compare
Denmark currently reports 6.55 billion against 6.39 billion in South Africa, a difference of 160.23 million.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 37 shared years of data; in 1990 it was South Africa ahead.
Denmark ranks 30th and South Africa ranks 31st of 189 countries.
Across the 4 decades both report, Denmark averaged higher in 1 and South Africa in 3.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Denmark | South Africa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 249.18 million | 307.00 million | 57.81 million | South Africa |
| 2000s | 255.96 million | 315.34 million | 59.38 million | South Africa |
| 2010s | 2.25 billion | 2.62 billion | 372.91 million | South Africa |
| 2020s | 5.26 billion | 5.24 billion | 12.76 million | Denmark |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher 11_sdr allocation, Denmark or South Africa?
- Denmark, at 6.55 billion against 6.39 billion in South Africa as of 2026.
- What is the difference in 11_sdr allocation between Denmark and South Africa?
- 160.23 million, with Denmark ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Denmark and South Africa?
- 37 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2026.
- How do Denmark and South Africa rank globally for 11_sdr allocation?
- Denmark ranks 30th and South Africa ranks 31st of 189 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)).