TIL that the US is #10 in foreign aid per capita.

This graph is extremely misleading.

First of all it states in the caption that it only includes

highest donation rates among countries with large populations

Even of this disclaimer were true, it's completely arbitrary and makes no sense. Norway (5.5 million) has about 8 times the population of Luxembourg (670,000). Whereas the US (340 million) has about 60 times the population of Norway. If such a size discrepancy is so meaningful that Luxembourg should be excluded, then how can it be relevant to compare Norway with the US despite the vastly larger population discrepancy? Luxembourg should be #3 btw along with Liechtenstein (2) and Monaco (4).

More damningly, they don't even live up to their disclaimer. Taking the numbers straight from the quoted source. They randomly excluded Denmark (7) and Ireland (8), which are just as populous as Norway and almost equivalent to Sweden in per capita ODA. They also excluded Iceland (11) and Finland (12), which come in above UK/Canada/Belgium/France. And then as the cherry on top they conveniently excluded Qatar (17) and Saudi Arabia (18). The US is #19. And then it's also missing Austria (20), UAE (21), and New Zealand (23), before you get to Australia, which is actually 24th, not 12th.

Furthermore, ODA is just a small part of the economic picture. As it states in the wikipedia article

by definition, ODA does not include private donations

The US is giving approximately $64.5 billion annually in ODA. In comparison, private charitable donations from American individuals, foundations, and corporations totalled $557 billion in 2023, with 67% of that money coming from individual donations.

Granted, many of those donations are directed towards domestic causes, but even if a relatively small percentage is directed towards foreign causes, it alters the narrative that is told by this graph. For instance, this organization is largely funded by the Gates foundation, which is a private charitable organization, and thus not included as ODA.

The foundation has donated more than $6.6 billion for global health programs, including over $1.3 billion donated as of 2012 on malaria alone, greatly increasing the dollars spent per year on malaria research. Before the Gates efforts on malaria, malaria drugmakers had largely given up on producing drugs to fight the disease, and the foundation is the world's largest donor to research on diseases of the poor. With the help of Gates-funded vaccination drives, deaths from measles in Africa have dropped by 90 percent since 2000.

In conclusion, I feel like that graph helps paint a certain political narrative that isn't even remotely accurate, partially because it randomly omits about half of the countries in the top 25, and partially because it's measuring a very limited subset of philanthropic activity.

I wouldn't go as far as to say extremely misleading. The graph there does show foreign aid per capita after all with a selection of western countries.
The title of this post is wrong and should either focus more on Luxembourg/Norway or say that US is behind some other country in foreign aid per capita.
- It isn't titled "foreign aid per capita among western countries" though. The fact that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also in the top 20 paints a very different picture of what placing highly on the list actually means.
  Furthermore, it doesn't say "among western countries with greater than 8.5m population except for Norway which is much smaller". The caption says "among countries with large populations", where a large population is defined as greater than 8.5 million. That's extremely misleading and arbitrary. And then Austria and Saudi Arabia are omitted anyway, despite fitting all the above criteria.
  So yeah, I would definitely go so far, and in fact I considered going further and calling it outright misinformation.
Some of the non-DAC members you mention are in the article, but agreed the graph is misleading
- But Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Austria are DAC members and they were still omitted. It's just a bad job by whoever made that graph.
Its not even philanthropy. This chart includes loans
This graph is extremely misleading.
So, which part of "per capita" did you not understand?
- I understood perfectly fine. You are the one who seems to be misunderstanding something.
  Saudi Arabia has a higher per capita ODP than three countries that are shown on this graph. Why was it excluded?

Keep in mind this is per capita. Overall the U.S. provides the most foreign aid by a wide margin. Over 10 billion dollars more compared to Germany and over 30 billion more compared to Norway.

The whole point of breaking down per capita is to account for the US having 4 times the population of Germany. It doesn't even get to GDP per capita (which is lower in Germany).
- Good point. Germans are able to provide better quality of life on smaller budget lol... Granted the defense spending would get thrown in their faces for this too.
I dont understand how anyone could criticize a per-capita statistic. It is completely logical to compare coutries by size. Or if not, we need to start talking about China being number one in almost everything in the world. Just having many people who contribute relatively little doesnt make your country more generous.
- Because when it's going away, the absolute number matters. I don't think anyone disagrees here; just looking at it from different angles.
yea, i'm all for shitting on the us, but come on. i'll bet all those countries also spend more on everything "per capita"
- US government spends more per capital on healthcare than all those nations with fancy universal healthcare.
Overall China spends more than the US and India about the same.
So what you're saying is that the US can do better.
Comparing the US to countries in Europe is just silly anyway. If you want a comparison, compare it to all of Europe. Or compare Texas to Germany.

Is that loans or donations? Because giving loans to poor countries is theft, not aid.

Edit: yeah, this is a chart of loans. Its not aid.

Another reason why Norway and Switzerland are the most developed countries.

I'm Norwegian. I feel like we are bribing all of you with a 10 dollar bill in hopes that you don't ask why we are sitting on a pile of 100 dollar bills. As a large exporter of oil and gas we make shitloads of money from fucking up the planet on several levels. So much of what we sell end up as microplastics, air pollution or worse.
We also make money on war.
The invasion of Ukraine affected the prices and made us an EXTRA 150000000000 USD just in 2022. Many Norwegians wanted to give it to Ukraine but we ended up keeping it. It's disgusting.
- We're across the water from you in the UK. I understand your predicament and agree on the ick factor, but your country has chosen the lesser of two evils.
  The amount of oil and gas coming in to the UK is declining, but it is still a vast volume - and since the 1970s, it has seen billions (maybe trillions or another scale higher?) of pounds worth flow through the UK.
  The problem is, it goes through the UK, and doesn't stop here.
  Aberdeen, Hull, Milford Haven, Norwich... all towns that have seen money that is exponentially times larger than their tax incomes flow through, and all of which have little to show for it. It's made us look like mugs, and all the money has flowed out to the US, the middle east, or other firms based in rando countries for ~~tax reasons~~ shareholder benefits.
  The Norway model with their sovereign wealth fund may be ethically questionable, but fuck me I personally wished we followed your lead in the 70s while we had the chance.
- Norwegians wanted to give it to Ukraine but we ended up keeping it
  The way US is heading, there still time for this. Kremlin must be very happy right now. Things are turning around for them.

Does anyone gave a link to a chart that actually shows charity? Ie not including loans?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation_as_percentage_of_GDP
This is by GDP, not per capita, unfortunately.

was, as in formerly :-|

That's cuz u ain't counting weapons

Does foreign aid mean like giving money to Israel to bomb innocent PR people?

It's stuff like food and medicine, things to combat the spread of HIV and other communicable diseases, poverty, and malnutrition.
USAID, for example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development
- It's not only "free money".
  It's often money that needs to be paid back with interest. Development aid can be used to earn money.
  Many countries work together on a metro project in Peru. The money comes back with interest. The countries participating also like to see that their companies work on the project and earn money, too.
  China probably clapped after the Orange One ended many of those prjects. Those countries will depend on China instead of the USA, which is bad for the USA once again.
- USAID makes money off of poor countries. They don't give money to help people
- A lot of corruption in USAID contracting with domestic firms getting these contracts.
  Not sure how other states do it. But the grift is real.
the u.s. gives countries money (usually) with the condition that they spend it on u.s. made equipment and munitions. those companies then make profits on those sales. it's basically subsidies for the u.s. defense industry. part of the 'military industrial complex'.
i think those funds fall somewhere under defense dept spending and would be separate from non-defense related foreign aid (humanitarian, medical, environmental, disaster, etc).
- Even the non military money isnt actual aid. Its loans that profit off of poor countries.
Like 50 million in Sexual health care to Gaza.