Liam
18th March 2012 |
You've got to remember US people that many of the nations the United States pays are because they've caused the problem or it's because it's not in their interests for a certain nation or land to collapse. The US rarely gives with both hands or out of the goodness of their own hearts. |
James Mason
10th August 2011 |
I want to know how much money is paid to each country in the world by the United States!!!!!!!! |
Jim Jensen
23rd July 2011 |
There is so much more aid given by the the US that doesn't fit into any measured category. This accounting is totally wrong. |
malcolm barnett
8th July 2011 |
we will never be able to do enough for these countries.
war, greed, graft theft we all know are rife, the only way is to take them over and run the countries uising the billions of aid for the correct polocies.
billions being wasted, stop it, or do something about. get sick of media stars asking for money on their behalf, they've had their money off of the public. let these stars adopt a village, villages and support them for food,water etc. there are enough "star" millions to look after most of the world, however they'r like "bono". Hiding their money |
Courtney
8th May 2011 |
The numbers above reflect official government expenditures on foreign aid, which is why (developed) countries with very high tax rates are at the top.
Most U.S. foreign aid is voluntarily donated by individual people to international charities, so it is not counted in these statistics. |
Vince
4th May 2011 |
This is as % of GNP. Some of the countries listed have a very small GNP |
ciscoheat
12th March 2011 |
These charts don't contain any private sector giving. The US's total effort is double what this chart is showing when adding this in. I'm all for looking at percentages, but I want to include all the data. If you do, you will find we are above average and 7th in line. Can we do more? Sure, but we are not anywhere near the lowest. Maybe our government is, but why tax us more to give more when we are already giving without being told to? |
Dave
9th March 2011 |
China is not on the list.
Why not?
They get foreign aid... |
Rohit Goel
3rd March 2011 |
Do these foreign aids given produce any substancial change?? |
Peter
6th February 2011 |
As many of the comments here make note of, it is difficult to find reliable ways of measuring how much countries actually spend on foreign aid - we need disbursement amounts, rather than commitment amounts, and we need reports on project implementation.
AidData (www.aiddata.org) is a good online resource for obtaining more granular information on aid activities. Their database compiles project-level information for nearly $2 trillion worth of aid projects financed by 87 donors, many of which have not previously published data in a central location. Many of their projects identify disbursement amounts and implementing agencies, such that the issues raised in this commentary can be more readily understood. |
Sam
31st January 2011 |
Do we give any aid to those countries that are shown to have a greater "committment" to give foreign aid? Using the "committment" as a percentage of GDI is fine. Except any aid that we give the other country should be considered aid that we gave, not as aid that they gave outof their GDI. If we give a million to Germany and they give a million to some nation in Africa it should be counted as aid that we gave Africa, not that Germany gave since it was our money that Germany gave. |
Gerry
28th January 2011 |
End all foreign aid and see who cries the most. |
robert
12th July 2010 |
Giving aid to most countries is a waste of money , it goes into the pockets of scum like Mugabe . We should look after our own people first , charity begins at home . |
Ray
9th July 2010 |
Well, no matter who is most or least, if you can't afford to pay your bills at home, and no one is there when YOU need their help, why give any of these nations any help. There isn't one that wouldn't jump at the chance to "forclose" on America, and where are these people in the "War on Terror?. Again, we go it relatively alone, and Americans are homeless and hungry when we send pallets of cash to those that would help us be Bankrupt. Sad commentary on our Government and it's accounting methods. |
Frank
8th February 2010 |
The USA is the single largest giver of economic aid in the world. end of story. |
Hazleton
8th February 2010 |
I would have to say that giving supplies and materials is better then simply giving money, aid should be in the way of food, clothing, books, Water treatment plants, ect... This way you know they are using the goods when you see them actually using them, further more the goods should be given straight to the people, not handed to the governments.
The only problem is that once the cameras leave, the governments can easily take the goods and other tangible items from the people and sell it. The Military of Iraq dose this far too often for personal reasons, the term i hear for their reasons, "I army, i take" As they point to their AK-47s.
Reasons like this is why i rearlly give to any aid group, let alone to people in general, i wold much rather pay for someone's education so they can go fix their nations problem then give them goods and services which can be taken at the point of a gun by their own government. |
james
25th January 2010 |
all our money is going to the corrupt uses of the corrupt governments in other countries. we need to find a way to directly send money and aid to the people suffering. |
guruelaine
14th January 2010 |
One wonders what has become of all the aid given to third world countries thus far? There are adverts depicting scenes of children drinking filthy water etc. Surely with all the millions given already they should have at least water? Perhaps certain people are skimming a neat fortune on the backs of these unfortunite people. Nothing would surprise me with the present climate of politicians and governments greed and short sightedness. |
Ty
14th January 2010 |
NationMaster seems to have an agenda toward slighting the US. It's all the rave today. Trying to measure "commitment" is a silly proposition to begin with. However, for those who really are interested in acquiring a sense of US commitment, the following link provides a good read. Much that the US offers is not taken into account. The US military, for example, is frequently employed in disaster relief, such as we saw in Haiti (as I type this, Haiti has just experienced its worse Earthquake in 200 years and US Southern Command is there with ships, hospitals, and supplies). We saw the same thing in Indonesia after the tsunami. In less dramatic terms, I recently observed US Southern Command soldiers building clinics and schools in impoverished western Panama. These operations cost many millions of dollars, but are typically not included in these comparisons. Few militaries in the world have the capacity to project resources around the world, and fewer still are willing to use their militaries for such purposes as humanitarian aid. http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/05/us/nowels.pdf |
Dave
25th July 2009 |
What is the point? Foreign aid and War on poverty have had the same results. Makes not one iota of sense. |
nigel delaney
14th June 2009 |
how much of our gdp(uk) goes in aid to foreign countries |
Eric Cartham
30th May 2009 |
It's funny to read these comments and see how the American education system has failed completely and how people can't understand even the most simple concepts of economics. America donates by FAR the least of any western country. If you want to look at absolute dollar amount, fine, but then compare for instance the EU with the US. Fox News style propaganda anyone? |
Mike
17th May 2009 |
In absolute numbers, that's correct. This chart depicts relative to the total size of the nation's economy, and since the USA has by far the world's leading economy, that's how both are true. |
Joshua (United States)
25th March 2009 |
Ryan King?
The United States maintains military bases throughout Europe? It is obviously helping to protect them, and that has been going on since the cold war.
Further it donates significantly to Nato, and on top of foreign aid, it floats the United Nations. Granted it has not always given as much money as promised, but without it, the United Nation's budget would shrink substantially.
The United States doesn't have the greatest historical track record, neither does any of the former European Imperial powers.
Further even if the united states gives the lowest of it's GDP, consider why that is. It has the largest financial sector, which requires a large amount of continuous capitol, it has the largest military budget, which helps maintain security around the world, and unfortunately has been used in the Iraq war. It has the largest deficit, which is mainly used to buy foreign products and thus is the reason for Japan's, China's, and Germany's surpluses, not to mention the economies of many other nations. It has a huge infrastructure that requires repair in order to maintain it's economy which the rest of the world relies on. Further it does all of this while maintaining a liberal democracy a rather costly venture. |
Joshua (United States)
25th March 2009 |
I'm far from saying America is amazing, but honestly comparing giving to military budget? The United States has the largest military budget out of anyone out there. A lot of that is because we're paranoid. The rest is because we still protect Japan, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other countries. These countries are then not required to spend anything on defense, so they build social health care and give with the extra money. For instance Denmark is your top country, they would go bankrupt if they attempted to give as much foreign aid as the United States. |
gd (df)
1st March 2009 |
what does one percent equal in money amount? |
Flavio (Los Angeles)
27th June 2006 |
Getting back on topic, John is correct. The US gives about 3% of GDP to charity. The difference is that this chart counts only government aid and not individual aid. |
Iconoclast555 (Madrid)
6th May 2006 |
Many European countries have applied or have at least discussed a 0.7% movement (a percentage of the national budget to be spent on foreign aid). Those who defend the US' stand on foreign aid might look at this figure... and then consider how much of their "foreign aid" is in the form of military hardware, credits to be spent on US goods and services (corporate welfare), or on financing the compound debt of 3rd world countries - which ultimately is a profit-making proposition).
The end result is that the US does indeed spend a lot on foreign aid - but not nearly enough considering the benefits it garners from its position of authority, its profits as the holder of the currency of reference, an the influence of its multinational corporations.
FWIW, I only note this because there seems to be a singular misconception about US policies - most Americans see themselves as wholly benevolent folk - while their government is far from benevolent. |
Steve
22nd January 2006 |
arentol:
this is 2006, not 1980?
Western Europe has no local security concerns, even less so Scandinavia. The US does not "provide virtually all military defense" for Denmark. |
FRANK
14th December 2005 |
Considering that the US spend 30x that of any other nation including Russia, China and Israel in military to police and protect the rest of the sick world societies, it makes your stats insignificant and worthless from my point of view. |
Ryan King
5th December 2005 |
The US gives the lowest percentage of its GDP to aid of all the aid givers. The latest figure put it at 0.19%, compared to the 1% given by Norway. Israel receives the largest portion of US aid at $3 bil. Israel is the largest aid recipient in the world. Even though it is richer than half the OECD nations.
Mr Brady: Since when did the US pay the defense budgets of all western European nations? It did not pay the defense budgets of any of the NATO nations. And lets not forget that a number of Western European nations are not even in NATO: Finland, Switzerland, Sweden. Also France, although a NATO member, does not have any US bases at all. |
Arthur D. Fulton
20th November 2005 |
A better measure would be non-military foreign aid as a percentage of GDP or per capital income. US would still come out pretty low. but it would be a better measure. It might put to rest some of the above commentators who labor under the misconception that the US is generous. |
John
16th October 2005 |
The USA gives about 3 cent of each 100$ GDP.
(read Jeffrey D. Sachs book The End of Poverty.)
The rest is military "aid" for countries like Egypt etc.
Denmark is the top aid giver measured in % of GDP. that is why they top this list as well, not that they use less on military expenses!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_gdp |
Rory
28th September 2005 |
These are all good comments. I would like to point out that alot of the problems that are occurring in, say, Africa, are due to faulty and narrowly focused policies implemented by the World Bank and other "donors," policies that have both directly and indirectly led to the exacerbation of extreme poverty in Africa through Desertification, other forms of Land Degradation, and the subsequent forced migration of the peasantry off of their farms and into unknown territories. As the US is the largest donor to the World Bank, and has obvious influence over the projects the Bank implements, it is only fair to effectively 'reimburse' the countries whose economies and livelihood have been damaged by the so-called "aid" programs pushed on them by the World Bank. In addition, as our own multinational pharmaceutical companies are keeping the price of necessary AIDS and malaria medicines too high to be affordable to the majority of those who need them, it is only fair that the US kick up its development aid to countries like Africa. |
Graham Webb
2nd September 2005 |
Michael, Your comments are a sad reflection of the moral choices your Countries citizens make. Giving aid is not a privilege, or an obligation, it is an act of humility and a tacit sign that individuals understand the unbalance of wealth on this planet. As has been suggested America falls far behind in recognising these issues. |
Dan
2nd August 2005 |
It is actually a fact that the people of the US contribute very generously; however, that doesn't mean that they would've done it without the incentives to do so. |
Superpower
1st August 2005 |
This is pretty biased since the U.S. gives billions more than any other country you just skewed the data to a percentage that makes it seem like we give the least. I don't see any aid given out by the oil rich Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia or United Arab Eremites. |
arentol
1st August 2005 |
This comparison provides no information of value in regards to who provides significant foreign aid. For instance, the only reason Denmark can provide so much foreign aid relative to it's military expenses is because it has virtually no military expenses thanks to the significant NATO countries like the UK and the US who provide virtually all military defense for Denmark. |
Stuart Ramsdale
1st August 2005 |
Why is it that when I see a similar piece done on military spending it is always listed in real dollars and yet here it is in percentages. The US also only spends about 4% of its GDP on the military. My suggestion is that this map be shown in real dollars. That way we would be able to see that the US gives more foreign aid than all other countries combined |
some smarter dude
1st August 2005 |
Lets find any obscure way to make it look like America doesn't care. Lets look at actual dollar amounts, sure a country like Denmark that's spends $50 on its military looks like a hero when it donates $25. |
Jason
1st August 2005 |
Here's a start:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/082102N.html
On average, the US government givers $17 to $19 Billion in aid per year (nearly twice any other nation), but this looks statistically low because it is less than the .7 percent of GDP that was agreed upon by the UN.
The American people average $35 Billion per year for charitable aid. This is not counting a whole bunch of programs within the US for foreign nationals that could be argued to be more beneficial to the US than a foreign entity and therefore, not really "aid". |
Craig
1st August 2005 |
Mark Brady (2005-06-27) Has a strong point, try separating the Military Spending stats and the Foreign Aid stats, it means more that way. |
Adam
1st August 2005 |
What a biased graph, The USA contributes the most foreign aid in the world, leaps and bounds ahead of all other countries. |
dave
1st August 2005 |
that's just the government right? not private nor religious? |
NotImpressed
31st July 2005 |
What's up skewed representation... Why don't you put the NUMERICAL figure next to the percentage.
I'm TRULY shocked that NORWAY spends more on foreign aid than it's military build up... WOW... I mean Norway is so often right in the middle of wars... I can't imagine how many BILLIONS in foreign aid they must donate to offset their HUGE military budget. |
Michael
31st July 2005 |
Instead of percentage, lets see it by monetary amounts. |
Wade
31st July 2005 |
So the US which gives more than any country is ranked the lowest on your goofy scale. When you include total giving the United States also gives the most per-capita.
This kind of scale is going to backfire on world aid someday. |
Andy Duff
31st July 2005 |
You have to consider the fact the US is responsible for part of the military defence of many of the nations on the list. Japan for example. |
an American
31st July 2005 |
OK, now let's see what the actual money amount is. America is the most generous nation in the world. And we have the military that defends all of those other nations listed. |
Ken
31st July 2005 |
Maybe you should add a map that shows how much actual money is being committed to foreign aid. I'm sick of political maps like this that do everything they can to make the US look bad. It's not our fault that we make more money than other countries. I personally believe that we should stop spending any money on foreign aid or NATO. Then we wouldn't have any poor people either. |
Captain Geek
31st July 2005 |
OK, that's all well and good when seen as a percentage, but how does that translate to actual goods, personnel, and or money? |
SDR
31st July 2005 |
"Definition: Relative commitment to aid and military expenditure. Official development assistance compared with military expenditure, 1995 %."
Relative to what? I'd take 3% of the superpower GNP sooner than I'd take 52% of the Denmark GNP. |
j hill
30th July 2005 |
A similar map ranking areas by overall foreign aid would be nice. It is very deceiving to compare using foreign aid vs. military spending. |
Chad
30th July 2005 |
This seems somewhat misleading. While, comparing military expenditures to foreign aid is interesting. A comparison
of foreign aid with respect to each countries GDP would seems
a more objective measure of national commitments to international aid.
I suppose that some portions of military expeditures can be
looked upon as as either as either positive or negative foreign aid, either a stablizing or destablizing force.
however this would be complex to analyze and quite cotroversial |
Glen
30th July 2005 |
can we compare cash vs percentage? |
Michael
18th July 2005 |
No, I'm saying that private US citizens donate more than the US government, I'm not comparing the US to other countries, but just to itself. (although now that you've questioned me...I haven't checked this statistic for awhile...I'd better go do that. Thanks for keeping me on my toes). |
Gary
12th July 2005 |
The United States is by far the worlds largest contributor to foreign aid, the way you mask this fact by presenting it as a proportion of the defense budget is classic lying with statistics |
James SSC
11th July 2005 |
Yasmin, It is in deed factual, you can see that fact on this very site.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/dis_tsu_fun_ple_by_ngo_and_pub |
Yasmin Jafferi
4th July 2005 |
Michael, Is it your opinion that America's citizens contributes the highest amount of interntion aid? If it is factual, I would like some facts, figures and references to support the claim. Thank you. |
Reuben
29th June 2005 |
It makes you sick to think how much money USA has spent invading Iraq, but how little they have given to countries who need real food/water/health aid like tsunami victims and African nations. Also, statistic in the London metro today, USA writes off more personal debts in America, than they do in foreign aid debts. |
Mark Brady
27th June 2005 |
The denominator is military spending and not GDP? As the country who has paid the nation defense budgets of all of Western Europe for the past 50 years, allowing those countries to do other things for their own citizens and others, we object. |
Feeds |
Contact