If Greenland were to be put up for sale, how much would it be worth? How to put a “price tag” on the territory

It’s unlikely that you missed this story. In recent weeks, US President-elect Donald Trump has reiterated his desire for the US to “own and manage” Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Trump first floated the idea of ​​the United States purchasing Greenland in 2019. At the time, Trump quite correctly claimed that he was not the first US president to come up with the idea.

In modern times, there are almost no sales of territories. It remains to be seen whether President Trump will reinstate them. But the question is interesting: how do we decide what to provide for a state, a territory, or an entire country?

not a new idea

Greenland’s strategic position has been of great value to the United States since the early days of the Cold War.

In 1946, then-President Harry Truman offered to purchase Danish territory for US$100 million in gold. The Danes reportedly responded to the offer in much the same way as they did in 2019 and 2025: “No, thank you.”

While it may seem strange today for one sovereign nation to purchase territory from another sovereign nation, there are numerous examples of this happening over time.

The United States purchased much of its western expansion in the early 19th century.

This includes the “Louisiana Purchase,” a vast tract of land in North America purchased from France in 1803 for US$15 million (estimated at US$416 million in 2024 figures).

About half a century later, after the Mexican-American War, the United States paid Mexico a large amount of territory. The United States also purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 for US$7.2 million (more than US$150 million today).

In 1917, he purchased the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark for US$25 million (more than US$600 million today) in gold coins.

It’s not just the US. Japan, Pakistan, Russia, Germany, and Saudi Arabia have all purchased territory, transferred jurisdiction over local populations, and acquired land, access to important waterways, or simply geographical buffer zones.

What are the values ​​of a country?

Evaluating a country (or an autonomous region like Greenland) is not an easy task. Unlike businesses and assets, countries have a mix of tangible and intangible elements that resist simple economic measurements.

The logical place to start is gross domestic product, or “GDP.” Simply put, GDP is the value of all final goods and services produced in an economy during a specific period of time (usually a year).

But does this really capture the true “value” of the economy? When we buy something, we want the benefits we get from it to continue into the future.

Therefore, determining a purchase price based on the value produced within a particular period of time may not adequately reflect the value of the object (in this case, the economy as a whole) to the buyer. You need to consider your ability to continue creating value into the future.

Greenland’s productive resources include not only the existing businesses, government, and workers used to generate its current GDP (estimated at approximately USD 3.236 billion in 2021), but also the resources used to transform and improve future GDP. It also includes the ability (which is difficult to measure) to do. This depends on how productive these resources are expected to be in the future.

There are other attributes of value that are not reflected in GDP. These include quality of capital (both human resources and infrastructure), quality of life, natural resources, and strategic position.

unused resources

From a market perspective, what makes Greenland valuable are the resources that are yet to be exploited, in addition to those that already exist.

Greenland has been mined for coal for decades and has large proven reserves. The subsoil is known to contain rare earths, precious metals, graphite, and uranium.

In addition to coal mining, gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, graphite, and marble are also mined.

Finally, large-scale oil development could occur off the coast of Greenland. None of this potential is reflected in Greenland’s current GDP.

National assets are easier

Putting a price on large national assets like the Panama Canal (which President Trump also wants to keep under U.S. control) is a much easier prospect.

Asset valuation theory is a fundamental part of financial discipline and its origins date back to the 18th century.

“Asset pricing models” have evolved over time, but essentially they are about estimating the future net income flow from an asset based on a number of inputs.

In the case of the Panama Canal, this involves estimating the net income that may be generated in the future based on factors such as the tolls incurred and the level of traffic expected to be generated by use of the canal.

Next, take steps to deduct the expected costs of maintaining the equipment and the expected damage to the health of the waterway. Another factor that determines how much to pay is the risk that that net profit will actually be realized.

The value or “price tag” of such assets is typically determined by calculating the present value of all these future (net) income flows.

Modern territorial sales are rare

Several factors contributed to the decline in regional sales. Historically, land sales have often benefited ruling elites more than ordinary citizens. In modern democracies, it is almost impossible to sell land if the local population objects.

Such democracies operate on the principle that national assets should serve the people, not the government’s coffers. Today, selling territory requires demonstrating clear and tangible benefits to the population, a difficult task in practice.

Nationalism also plays a powerful role. Land is deeply tied to a nation’s identity, and selling it is often seen as a betrayal. Governments, the guardians of national pride, are reluctant to accept offers, no matter how attractive.

Compounding this is strong international norms against border changes, born of concerns that one territorial adjustment could trigger a cascade of claims and conflicts elsewhere.

In today’s world, buying a country or one of its territories may be nothing more than a thought experiment. Nations are political, cultural, and historical entities that resist commodification.

Greenland may have a price in theory, but the real question is whether such a deal is consistent with modern values ​​and reality.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.