Gross national income per capita

GNI was previously known as GNP. It was a Gross National Product, which was basically a very similar number to GDP. However, due to the obsolete calculating methods, it was renamed and nowadays every country uses Gross National Income, which is GNI.

Though the numbers of GNI and GDP are similar, the biggest difference regards developing countries, which receive much larger donations. They also make use of humanitarian aid and, as a result, their funds are greatly enlarged. But what does the GNI per capita look like?

Firstly, let’s take a look at the lowest GNI per capita numbers

There are dozens of nations that have GNI per capita (PPP) below $2,000. However, the lowest value recorded in 2019 belonged to Burundi. It was only $790. Number two in our infamous ranking goes to the Central African Republic, which had a little better GNI per capita (PPP) at around $1,060. Malawi comes third with the value of $1,080.

In terms of larger nations that have greater GDPs and are not considered developing countries, particularly low value comes from Nepal, which has $3,610. Another surprise in the ranking is Cote d'Ivoire, which is considered to be one of the most developed African nations. It has the GDP per capita of only $5,300. The largest surprise is; however, the number three at the general GDP PPP rankings, namely India. They have little less than $7,000 per citizen.

What about the highest numbers of GNI per capita?

The top three are Macau SAR in China, Singapore and Qatar. The lowest step of the podium belongs to Qatar with the GNI per capita value of $91,670. Singapore comes second with the value very similar, but slightly higher, namely $92,270. The data comes from 2019 and represents the latest collection of information.

As far as the winner of the ranking is concerned, the most recent year of information regarding the GNI per capita (PPP) comes from 2018. At the end of that year, the staggering number of $123,400 concerned the administrative region in China, namely Macau SAR. It was possible due to a completely different administrative and taxation laws and regulations.