Norway vs Poland: 11_SDR allocation

Norway
6.86 billion
in 2025
Poland
6.95 billion
in 2025
Norway rank
26th
Poland rank
25th

11_SDR allocation over time

  • Norway
  • Poland
02.0B4.0B6.0B8.0B199020072025

How they compare

Poland currently reports 6.95 billion against 6.86 billion in Norway, a difference of 90.51 million.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 36 shared years of data; in 1990 it was Norway ahead.

Norway ranks 26th and Poland ranks 25th of 188 countries.

Norway has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Norway Poland Difference Ahead
1990s 233.73 million 0 233.73 million Norway
2000s 240.08 million 0 240.08 million Norway
2010s 2.30 billion 1.92 billion 379.50 million Norway
2020s 5.35 billion 5.29 billion 58.74 million Norway

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher 11_sdr allocation, Norway or Poland?
Poland, at 6.95 billion against 6.86 billion in Norway as of 2025.
What is the difference in 11_sdr allocation between Norway and Poland?
90.51 million, with Poland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Norway and Poland?
36 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2025.
How do Norway and Poland rank globally for 11_sdr allocation?
Norway ranks 26th and Poland ranks 25th 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

Indicator
11_SDR allocation
Source
IMF
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
189 places, 6,685 data points, 1990–2025
Last refreshed

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)).