Aid in Figures
By Fonju Ndemesah
Understanding, measuring and explaining aid using data is not free from pitfalls. In fact, on the flow of resources to developing countries, not too much can be read. However, based on international data, I will endeavor to explain the structure and impact of financial aid transfer to developing countries.
Singer and Ansari tell us that “total net flow of resources when from an average of $16 billion in the 1969-71 to an average of $52 billion in the period 1974-9. After reaching a peak of over $88 billion in 1981, total net resource flows stood at $83,650 million in 1984, dropping further to around $ 80,000 million in 1985”.[i]
Development aid fell by 4% in real terms in 2012, following a 2% fall in 2011. According to the DAC Survey on Donors’ Forward Spending Plans, a moderate recovery in aid levels is expected in 2013.
Based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) figures, in 2012, members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD provided USD 125.6 billion in net official development assistance (ODA), representing 0.29 per cent of their combined gross national income (GNI), a -4.0% drop in real terms compared to 2011[ii]
Bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa was USD 26.2 billion, representing a fall of -7.9 % in real terms compared to 2011. Aid to the African continent fell by -9.9% to USD 28.9 billion, following exceptional support to some countries in North Africa after the “Arab Spring” in 2011.
Bilateral net ODA to the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) also fell by -12.8% in real terms to about USD 26 billion.[iii]
Concerning the donors’ performance, OECD puts forward this statistics;
“The largest donors, by volume, were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan. Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden continued to exceed the United Nations’ ODA target of 0.7% of GNI. Net ODA rose in real terms in nine countries, with the largest increases recorded in Australia, Austria, Iceland (which joined the DAC in 2013), Korea and Luxembourg. By contrast net ODA fell in fifteen countries, with the largest cuts recorded in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal, the countries most affected by the euro zone crisis.
The G7 countries provided 70% of total net DAC ODA in 2012, and the DAC-EU countries 51%.
The United States continued to be the largest donor by volume with net ODA flows amounting to USD 30.5 billion in 2012, representing a fall of -2.8% in real terms compared to 2011. US ODA as a share of GNI also fell from 0.20% in 2011 to 0.19% in 2012. The fall was mainly due to a reduction in bilateral net debt relief from USD 1.1 billion in 2011 to USD 56.3 million in 2012. However, US contributions to international organizations reached a historic high of USD 4.9 billion (+30.0% in real terms compared to 2011). In 2012, US bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa fell to USD 8.8 billion (-4.5% in real terms compared to 2011); however, excluding debt relief it rose by +7.2%.
ODA from the fifteen EU countries that are DAC members was USD 63.7 billion in 2012, representing a fall of -7.4% compared to 2011. As a share of their combined GNI, ODA fell from 0.44% in 2011 to 0.42% in 2012.
In 2012, total net ODA by the 27 EU member states was USD 64.9 billion, representing 0.39% of their combined GNI. Net disbursements by EU Institutions to developing countries and multilateral organizations were USD 17.6 billion, a rise of +8.0% compared to 2011, due essentially to an increase in loans.
Data from 2010 confirm the historical pattern of DAC members directing most of their multilateral aid to five clusters of multilaterals. “The total between 2006 and 2010 was 81%, which can be broken down as follows: the European Development Fund (EDF)-plus-European Union (EU) budget (36%)9 ; International Development Association (IDA) (22%); UN Funds and Programmes (9%), the African and Asian Development Banks (AfDB and AsDB) (5% and 3%), and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (7%). Only 19% of total multilateral aid was allocated to the remaining 212 multilateral organizations, funds or trust funds, many of which have research or policy functions or serve a norms-based or standard-setting purpose.”[iv]
Sources
[i] Hans W. Singer and Javed A. Ansari (1992) Rich and Poor Countries, London: Routledge
[ii] OECD. Aid to poor countries slips further as governments tighten budgets. http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/aidtopoorcountriesslipsfurtherasgovernmentstightenbudgets.htm,Visited on 02/12/2013
[iii] OECD. Aid to poor countries slips further as governments tighten budgets. http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/aidtopoorcountriesslipsfurtherasgovernmentstightenbudgets.htm,Visited on 02/12/2013
[iv] OECD, DAC Report on Multilateral Aid, OECD, Paris. In http://www.oecd.org/dac/aid-architecture/DCD_DAC(2012)33_FINAL.pdf, visited on 2/12/2013
Understanding, measuring and explaining aid using data is not free from pitfalls. In fact, on the flow of resources to developing countries, not too much can be read. However, based on international data, I will endeavor to explain the structure and impact of financial aid transfer to developing countries.
Singer and Ansari tell us that “total net flow of resources when from an average of $16 billion in the 1969-71 to an average of $52 billion in the period 1974-9. After reaching a peak of over $88 billion in 1981, total net resource flows stood at $83,650 million in 1984, dropping further to around $ 80,000 million in 1985”.[i]
Development aid fell by 4% in real terms in 2012, following a 2% fall in 2011. According to the DAC Survey on Donors’ Forward Spending Plans, a moderate recovery in aid levels is expected in 2013.
Based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) figures, in 2012, members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD provided USD 125.6 billion in net official development assistance (ODA), representing 0.29 per cent of their combined gross national income (GNI), a -4.0% drop in real terms compared to 2011[ii]
Bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa was USD 26.2 billion, representing a fall of -7.9 % in real terms compared to 2011. Aid to the African continent fell by -9.9% to USD 28.9 billion, following exceptional support to some countries in North Africa after the “Arab Spring” in 2011.
Bilateral net ODA to the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) also fell by -12.8% in real terms to about USD 26 billion.[iii]
Concerning the donors’ performance, OECD puts forward this statistics;
“The largest donors, by volume, were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan. Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden continued to exceed the United Nations’ ODA target of 0.7% of GNI. Net ODA rose in real terms in nine countries, with the largest increases recorded in Australia, Austria, Iceland (which joined the DAC in 2013), Korea and Luxembourg. By contrast net ODA fell in fifteen countries, with the largest cuts recorded in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal, the countries most affected by the euro zone crisis.
The G7 countries provided 70% of total net DAC ODA in 2012, and the DAC-EU countries 51%.
The United States continued to be the largest donor by volume with net ODA flows amounting to USD 30.5 billion in 2012, representing a fall of -2.8% in real terms compared to 2011. US ODA as a share of GNI also fell from 0.20% in 2011 to 0.19% in 2012. The fall was mainly due to a reduction in bilateral net debt relief from USD 1.1 billion in 2011 to USD 56.3 million in 2012. However, US contributions to international organizations reached a historic high of USD 4.9 billion (+30.0% in real terms compared to 2011). In 2012, US bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa fell to USD 8.8 billion (-4.5% in real terms compared to 2011); however, excluding debt relief it rose by +7.2%.
ODA from the fifteen EU countries that are DAC members was USD 63.7 billion in 2012, representing a fall of -7.4% compared to 2011. As a share of their combined GNI, ODA fell from 0.44% in 2011 to 0.42% in 2012.
In 2012, total net ODA by the 27 EU member states was USD 64.9 billion, representing 0.39% of their combined GNI. Net disbursements by EU Institutions to developing countries and multilateral organizations were USD 17.6 billion, a rise of +8.0% compared to 2011, due essentially to an increase in loans.
Data from 2010 confirm the historical pattern of DAC members directing most of their multilateral aid to five clusters of multilaterals. “The total between 2006 and 2010 was 81%, which can be broken down as follows: the European Development Fund (EDF)-plus-European Union (EU) budget (36%)9 ; International Development Association (IDA) (22%); UN Funds and Programmes (9%), the African and Asian Development Banks (AfDB and AsDB) (5% and 3%), and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (7%). Only 19% of total multilateral aid was allocated to the remaining 212 multilateral organizations, funds or trust funds, many of which have research or policy functions or serve a norms-based or standard-setting purpose.”[iv]
Sources
[i] Hans W. Singer and Javed A. Ansari (1992) Rich and Poor Countries, London: Routledge
[ii] OECD. Aid to poor countries slips further as governments tighten budgets. http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/aidtopoorcountriesslipsfurtherasgovernmentstightenbudgets.htm,Visited on 02/12/2013
[iii] OECD. Aid to poor countries slips further as governments tighten budgets. http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/aidtopoorcountriesslipsfurtherasgovernmentstightenbudgets.htm,Visited on 02/12/2013
[iv] OECD, DAC Report on Multilateral Aid, OECD, Paris. In http://www.oecd.org/dac/aid-architecture/DCD_DAC(2012)33_FINAL.pdf, visited on 2/12/2013