This list is based on "official development assistance" measured in absolute terms. It doesn't include private donations and does not include many other things that don't fall under the ODA umbrella.
Most data from the OECD index, 2019
*some non-DAC (Development Assistance Committee) members publish their own data
Fairly predictable, though I was a little surprised to see Greece and Spain on the list given the dire straits their own economy is in. Americans often talk about the need to place domestic priorities ahead of international aid programs but they would have a much harder case to make for the need. Maybe since this data is a few years old things have changed, though. Also, sorry about the quiz not accepting "UK" as an entry for United Kingdom, I've already noted it and will fix it.
As you have noted, the data are from April 2010 and I guess they have collected it years before when the straits were not so dire in the two Mediterranean countries.
Finally updated this. Spain's total foreign aid amount has been cut to about a third of what it used to be, but they still make the list. Greece has fallen out of the top 20.
I saw that. But other users came out with quizzes already based on the more up-to-date information, so I decided to leave this one as is as a sort of time capsule.
One final point about democracy before I move on from this discussion... democracy is a means to an end. It's not an end unto itself. At it's best, democracy helps to curb corruption by putting power into the hands of many instead of a few. In theory, this helps ensure that whoever is in charge isn't running the country purely to benefit themselves, and also in theory it should make it more difficult for leaders to make obviously bad decisions if they are held accountable to electors. Also in theory democracy helps to ensure the rights of minorities, but that requires some very robust legal protections for minorities spelled out in a Constitution, to counterbalance the tendency of the majority in the mob to inflict its will and its prejudices on the minority. However, democracy is not perfect. It is actually quite fragile and easily corruptible, and of course if power is in the hands of the people and people are unfit to rule you have a problem.
In summation, no system of government is perfect, including Democracy. All systems of government are simply a means to an end. The goal of any government should be a stable, prosperous, peaceful and egalitarian society; or as close to that as possible. The success of any country or government should be weighed against its ability to achieve these ends and provide these things to people. If Country A allows women to go to college and make their own decisions, minorities to hold public office and lead dignified lives, and promotes peaceful relations with other countries but is ruled by a despot; and Country B oppresses women and minorities and is constantly antagonizing other countries but has a democratically elected leader- then it's insane to say that Country B is better off simply because it has a democratic government. Democracy is not the goal. The things that democracy *sometimes* provides should be.
My friend always says that an absolute dictatorship is usually better than a democracy because they have more power and can make the country better easier and are less corruptible.
If you get lucky with the dictator, yes. But they also say absolute power corrupts absolutely and that often seems to be the case. The ideal of system of government I envision is a bit complicated and doesn't closely resemble anything tried before in history, but it would be something like a combination of enlightened despotism with elements of geniocracy, meritocracy, democracy, and constitutional parliamentary republic woven in.
The original discussion that this was supposed to be an end-note for is gone now... I can't remember but I wonder if that was started by the guy I recently banned.
If the US gave $180 billion in aid, first, that would be preposterous considering the expenses of running such a big country (and the world, by and large); second, they would probably get 6x as much flak as they already do for meddling. See DB692's comments above to see what I mean. Also, if aid were proportional to population then the list would go 1. China, 2. India, 3. USA, 4. Indonesia, 5. Brazil, 6. Pakistan, 7. Nigeria, 8. Russia, 9. Bangladesh..... noticing a trend here?
How am I doing that? Ben seems to be suggesting that aid should somehow correlate to population. I just pointed out that of all the most populous countries in the world, the USA is the ONLY one that gives large amounts of foreign aid. The others give almost nothing.
Just because I gave up talking to you, if someone else comes along and makes a similarly bad but very different argument as mr. marker did, I haven't lost the right to respond to them, have I? You never said anything about population, you were trying to make the argument that foreign aid was somehow malevolent. And that it would be better to funnel money into large banks and corporations and exploitative mining operations as the Chinese do rather than humanitarian efforts to feed people or provide them with potable water, education, or security.
Yes. It's actually a fairly enormous amount. Triple or quadruple the amount of total government aid given, in an average year. It also does not include military aid, which the US gives much larger amounts of than any other country.
Good thing the United States is so good at launching drone strikes against innocent Pakistanis. A fine example of generosity. They even shared their love of Guatemala by installing a pro-US "president" who led a genocide to kill Mayans and other Indigenous people. Speaking of genocides, the United States was ever so generous to fund genocides in Africa so that local governments and/or militaries didn't have to...........Seriously though, whoever thinks the United States is a generous country should pick up a history book, (that isn't propaganda), because no amount of money the US donates will fix the damage they cause. I do not mean to offend Americans, I just want to point out the government caused problems.
yeah... those strikes are definitely aimed at innocent people. That's not paranoid delusional schizophrenia at all. Definitely not propaganda, either. And certainly 100% related to the subject of the quiz.
The population of the USA is about 3.5 times the population of France, yet they only give double what they do. The population of the USA is about 17-18 times that of The Netherlands, yet they give not even 5 times more. Tell me again how this makes the USA look good?
Just to see some perspective, according to this data, the Netherlands donates around 370 dollars a person, while the USA donates around 87.5 dollars a person. However it is donated money, so it is both a lot of money, so just be happy and go on with your life
That's funny: no China or Russia on the list. No oil-rich nations other than Canada and the USA either. It's as though there are only democracies being generous...
I just updated the quiz using 2019 data and this is still true. The top 8 countries on the list all saw significant increases in the amount of foreign aid they gave vs. 2010, except for France which saw a small decrease. The rest of the list were largely unchanged except for Spain which saw a big dip, South Korea which had a big bump, and Greece which fell off the top 20 making room for Poland to show up now.
Oops. I missed the fact that the OECD only publishes data of DAC (Development Assistance Committee) members. There are some non-DAC members who publish their own figures independently, and, if they are to be believed, China actually does make the list now as does Russia and the United Arab Emirates... hm... it's a little disappointing that the figures can't all be coming from a single source, but, to be fair I think I am going to have to update this one more time.
And... actually now with China, India, Turkey, and the UAE all on the list that raises the floor of the top 20 over 2 billion dollars, so Russia still doesn't make the list. Their own self-published figure for total foreign aid $1.14 billion. Qatar would be in 21st place at $2 billion.
and Brazil, I am very upset with you :/
Just because I gave up talking to you, if someone else comes along and makes a similarly bad but very different argument as mr. marker did, I haven't lost the right to respond to them, have I? You never said anything about population, you were trying to make the argument that foreign aid was somehow malevolent. And that it would be better to funnel money into large banks and corporations and exploitative mining operations as the Chinese do rather than humanitarian efforts to feed people or provide them with potable water, education, or security.
I'm still not changing the name of the quiz.