Barbados vs Chile: Adjusted net savings per capita
Barbados
-423.96 current US$
in 2017
Chile
-553.07 current US$
in 2021
Barbados rank
156th
Chile rank
158th
Adjusted net savings per capita over time
- Barbados
- Chile
How they compare
Barbados currently reports -423.96 current US$ against -553.07 current US$ in Chile, a difference of 129.11 current US$.
The two have swapped places 9 times across 28 shared years of data; in 1990 it was Barbados ahead.
Barbados ranks 156th and Chile ranks 158th of 164 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Barbados averaged higher in 1 and Chile in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Barbados | Chile | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 728.03 current US$ | 406.96 current US$ | 321.06 current US$ | Barbados |
| 2000s | 377.48 current US$ | 600.56 current US$ | 223.07 current US$ | Chile |
| 2010s | -385.46 current US$ | 1,276 current US$ | 1,662 current US$ | Chile |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher adjusted net savings per capita, Barbados or Chile?
- Barbados, at -423.96 current US$ against -553.07 current US$ in Chile as of 2017.
- What is the difference in adjusted net savings per capita between Barbados and Chile?
- 129.11 current US$, with Barbados ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Barbados and Chile?
- 28 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2017.
- How do Barbados and Chile rank globally for adjusted net savings per capita?
- Barbados ranks 156th and Chile ranks 158th of 164 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- United Nations Population Division, national statistical offices, and Eurostat, via World Bank (2026) β processed by Our World in Data, published as Adjusted net savings per capita. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Adjusted net savings are equal to net national savings plus education expenditure and minus energy depletion, mineral depletion, net forest depletion, and carbon dioxide.