Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) vs Tanzania: Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in South

Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries)
7.8%
in 2023
Tanzania
13.7%
in 2023
Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) rank
8th
Tanzania rank
11th

Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in South over time

  • Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries)
  • Tanzania
05101520196019912023

How they compare

Tanzania currently reports 13.7% against 7.8% in Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries), a difference of 5.9%.

That makes Tanzania's figure about 1.8 times Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries)'s.

Across all 64 years both countries report, Tanzania has been ahead every year.

Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) ranks 8th and Tanzania ranks 11th of 47 groups.

Tanzania has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) Tanzania Difference Ahead
1960s 2.5% 7.2% 4.6% Tanzania
1970s 1.6% 3.6% 2.0% Tanzania
1980s 1.7% 4.4% 2.8% Tanzania
1990s 2.5% 6.8% 4.3% Tanzania
2000s 4.0% 8.2% 4.2% Tanzania
2010s 6.5% 15.0% 8.5% Tanzania
2020s 7.8% 12.8% 5.1% Tanzania

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in south, Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) or Tanzania?
Tanzania, at 13.7% against 7.8% in Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) as of 2023.
What is the difference in merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in south between Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) and Tanzania?
5.9%, with Tanzania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) and Tanzania?
64 years are reported by both, from 1960 to 2023.
How do Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) and Tanzania rank globally for merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in south?
Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) ranks 8th and Tanzania ranks 11th of 47 groups.
Where does this data come from?
Staff estimates, World Bank (WB), published as Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in South Asia (% of total merchandise imports). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) vs Tanzania: Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in South. Statizoid, drawing on Staff estimates, World Bank (WB). Retrieved 18 September 2026, from https://private-sector.statizoid.com/compare/merchandise-imports-from-low-and-middle-income-economies-in-south-asia-percent-of-total/sub-saharan-africa-ida-and-ibrd-countries/tanzania/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://private-sector.statizoid.com/compare/merchandise-imports-from-low-and-middle-income-economies-in-south-asia-percent-of-total/sub-saharan-africa-ida-and-ibrd-countries/tanzania/">Sub-Saharan Africa (IDA & IBRD countries) vs Tanzania: Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in South</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in South Asia (% of total merchandise imports)
Unit
% of total merchandise imports
Source
Staff estimates, World Bank (WB)
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
252 places, 12,943 data points, 1960–2023
Last refreshed

Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in South Asia are the sum of merchandise imports by the reporting economy from low- and middle-income economies in the South Asia region according to the World Bank classification of economies. Data are expressed as a percentage of total merchandise imports by the economy. Data are computed only if at least half of the economies in the partner country group had non-missing data.