Official development assistance
Official development assistance is a category used by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to measure foreign aid. The DAC first adopted the concept in 1969. It is widely used as an indicator of international aid flow. It refers to material resources given by the governments of richer countries to promote the economic development of poorer countries and the welfare of their people. The donor government agency may disburse such resources to the government of the recipient country or through other organizations. Most ODA is in the form of grants, but some is measured as the concessional value in soft loans.
In 2019, the annual amount of state donor aid counted as ODA was US$168 billion, of which US$152 billion came from DAC donors.
Concept and definition
In order to co-ordinate and measure international aid effectively, the DAC needs its members to have agreed clear criteria for what is counted as aid. The precise type of aid to be counted was given the name of official development assistance .The full definition of ODA is:
In other words, ODA needs to contain the three elements:
- undertaken by the official sector
- with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and
- at concessional financial terms.
- Official Aid : Flows which meet conditions of eligibility for inclusion in Official Development Assistance, other than the fact that the recipients are on Part II of the Development Assistance Committee List of Aid Recipients.
- Other Official Flows : Transactions by the official sector with countries on the List of Aid Recipients which do not meet the conditions for eligibility as Official Development Assistance or Official Aid, either because they are not primarily aimed at development, or because they have a grant element of less than 25 percent.
- If a donor country accords a grant or a concessional loan to Afghanistan it is classified as ODA, because it is on the Part I list.
- If a donor country accords a grant or a concessional loan to Bahrain it is classified as OA, because it is on the Part II list.
- If a donor country gives military assistance to any other country or territory it is classified as OOF, because it is not aimed at development.
Developments since inception
The definition of ODA was made firmer in 1972, specifying that qualifying loans should have a grant element of at least 25%. At the same time, donors adopted a target that at least 84% of their overall ODA should be grant, or count as grant element, rather than commercially repayable loan. This proportion was increased to 86% in 1978.
The legitimacy of "tied aid" had been debated periodically in the DAC. In 1992 the DAC adopted rules for ODA restricting tied aid to lower-income countries and less "commercially viable" projects: restrictions that had been pushed by the U.S. to reduce protectionism in the world trading system. The DAC made a further recommendation on untying in 2001.
In 2012 the DAC began a process of modernizing its statistical system and reforming some of the ways in which ODA is counted. In 2014 the DAC donors agreed that ODA should measure the "grant equivalent" of loans estimated at the time of the loan, rather than loan inflows and outflows as they occurred. It took five years, however, before this was implemented. Between 2016 and 2018 the rules were clarified for counting incidental developmental contributions by foreign military forces when deployed in underdeveloped countries for peace and security purposes. In this period there was also clarification of the criteria for counting some in-donor refugee costs as humanitarian assistance ODA. In 2019, the DAC switched its main reporting of ODA loans to the grant equivalent basis. But this approach creates problems for the accounting of debt relief within ODA, and donors only reached consensus on how to treat this in 2020.
As of 2020, two major items remained as works in progress in the aid modernization agenda: the counting of aid provided through private sector instruments, and the construction of a system for measuring broader contributions to global public goods in support of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The latter type of aid is expected to be recorded as Total Official Support for Sustainable Development, and will be a separate category from ODA.
0.7% target
The target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on ODA is the best known international aid target. It was formalised on 24 October 1970, when the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which included the goal that "Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7% of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade ." Sweden and the Netherlands were the first countries to meet the target, in 1974, but it has been met by few other countries since.Overall quantity
In 2019, the annual amount of state donor aid counted as ODA was US$168 billion, of which US$152 billion came from DAC donors. In the decade 2010–2019, average annual ODA was US$151.5 billion.Historically, the amount of ODA disbursed every year rose approximately four-fold in real terms during the 60 years from 1960. The level was rather stagnant up to 1973. It generally rose from 1973 to 1992, then declined to 1997, then increased again.
ODA as a proportion of donor national incomes
The proportion of their combined gross national income spent by DAC donors on ODA decreased from over 0.5% in 1961 to less than 0.3% in 1973. After that, while donors' incomes continued to grow, the level of ODA remained around 0.3 - 0.35%, except when it dipped below that level in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The USA - the donor with the largest economy - spent more than 0.5% of its GNI on ODA prior to 1966, but this proportion gradually dropped, reaching a low point of 0.1% in the late 1990s, and standing at 0.15% in 2019.Quantities of ODA from leading donors
Since 1960 the five largest donors of ODA have been: the US, Germany, the UK, Japan and France. See chart on the right.The top 10 donors of ODA in 2019 were: United States, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Turkey, Netherlands, Sweden, Canada and Italy. See pie chart below. Of these, Turkey is the only non-member of the DAC. Turkey's large ODA contribution is associated with the great numbers of Syrian refugees in the country.
Donor countries by percentage of gross national income
The OECD also lists countries by the amount of ODA they give as a percentage of their gross national income. In 2019 six countries met the longstanding UN target for an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.7%. The ratios of the five most generous donors in this sense, and the five highest-volume donors, are shown in the chart below.In 2021, the UK reduced its annual aid budget from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5%.
Quantities of ODA by recipient country
In 2019, Syria was the focus of more ODA than any other country, at $10.3 billion. Next were Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Yemen and Afghanistan. China, Indonesia and Thailand were negative recipients: their repayments of past ODA loans were higher than their new receipts.According to estimates that the OECD made in 2014, 28 countries with an aggregate population of around 2 billion people will cease to be ODA eligible by 2030. They include emerging markets such as China, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Malaysia, Thailand and Turkey.
Multilateral ODA
Most ODA is bilateral, meaning that its state donor is identifiable at the point of delivery to intended beneficiaries. Multilateral ODA, on the other hand, is aid given into a pool administered by some intermediate organisation, so that the delivered aid is no longer attributable to a particular original state donor. In 2019, 28% of all ODA was multilateral. The main organizations for multilateral ODA were the European Union, the IDA, regional development banks and UN agencies.Tied ODA
Tied aid is aid given on condition that the money is used to buy things from the donor country or a severely limited group of countries. The legitimacy of tied ODA has long been a point of contention within the DAC. Targets have been set to reduce tying: for example in the 2005 Paris Declaration and the DAC's "Recommendation" on untying, first agreed in 1998 and subsequently maintained in revised forms. Official monitoring of performance against these targets is, however, undermined by a discrepancy between what the OECD calls de jure and de facto rates of tying, i.e. what the donors report and what they do. A major review of the Paris Declaration targets found that, in 2009, 51% of contracts was spent in the country of the donor, even though donors were reporting only 14% of their aid as tied. The report pointed out that most DAC members failed to use a public bulletin board to advertise contract tenders. The OECD's 2020 report on tied aid found this failure was still widespread. Hence the official statistics on tied ODA must be treated with caution.In 2019 five DAC members declared giving more than half of their ODA in the form of tied aid. The largest donor, the US, gave almost 40% of its ODA as tied aid, amounting to US$11.0 billion. Overall, DAC donors in 2019 reported US$22.1 billion – about 20% – of their ODA as tied aid. Historically, the reported proportion of tied aid dropped from about 50% in 1979 to less than 10% in 2003, but rose again, and fluctuated between 15 and 20% between 2007 and 2019. This was despite agreement by the donors in the 2005 Paris Declaration to further reduce their tying of aid.
While the last paragraph refers to the proportion of tied aid in overall ODA, the DAC "Recommendation" on untying applies only to Low-Income Countries and a few other countries. In 2018, 87% of all DAC ODA to these countries was reported as being untied. While 19 of the 30 DAC members claimed to have untied more than 90% of their ODA to these countries, the average was dragged down mainly by the United States, which reported only 64% untied aid to these recipients.