Countries That Give the Most Foreign Aid: 2024 ODA Ranking

Foreign-aid rankings look simple until the question is defined. A country can be the largest donor in absolute dollars while giving a relatively small share of its national income. Another country can have a much smaller economy but devote a larger share of its resources to development assistance. Comparing the two without separating volume from effort produces a misleading leaderboard.

This article uses the OECD Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) official development assistance (ODA) framework because it is the most comparable international measure of government aid. The latest directly comparable country ranking used here is the OECD’s preliminary 2024 data, published on 16 April 2025. In that dataset, DAC-member countries provided USD 212.1 billion of ODA, equal to 0.33% of their combined gross national income (GNI). The United States was the largest country donor by volume, followed by Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and France.1

The figures are not a measure of every financial flow that crosses a border. They do not place private remittances, ordinary foreign investment, commercial export credits and all forms of development finance into one undifferentiated total. ODA is a defined statistical category: government-backed assistance whose main objective is the economic development and welfare of eligible developing countries, including grants and the grant-equivalent value of qualifying concessional loans.2 3

Scope note: The ranking below reports preliminary 2024 DAC ODA figures. Amounts are nominal USD totals as reported by the OECD, while the percentage-of-GNI comparison uses the OECD’s 2024 preliminary ratios. The ranking should be updated when the OECD’s final 2024 tables supersede the preliminary release.

The short answer

The United States gave the most ODA in absolute terms in the OECD’s preliminary 2024 data: USD 63.3 billion. Germany followed with USD 32.4 billion, the United Kingdom with USD 18.0 billion, Japan with USD 16.8 billion, and France with USD 15.4 billion.1

That answer changes when the question becomes “Which countries make the largest aid effort relative to the size of their economies?” Only four DAC countries exceeded the long-standing United Nations reference target of 0.7% of GNI in 2024: Luxembourg at 1.00%, Norway at 1.02%, Sweden at 0.79% and Denmark at 0.71%. The target is a political and international commitment, not a legal tax or spending requirement imposed uniformly on every country.1 16 17

Question	Leader or main result in preliminary 2024 OECD data	Why it matters
Who gave the most dollars?	United States, USD 63.3 billion	Measures total donor volume and global financial weight.
Who came second by volume?	Germany, USD 32.4 billion	Germany’s total includes bilateral, multilateral and qualifying in-donor items.
Which countries exceeded 0.7% of GNI?	Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden and Denmark	Measures aid effort relative to the size of the economy.
How much did DAC members give in total?	USD 212.1 billion	Provides the denominator for the country ranking.
Did aid rise or fall in 2024?	It fell 7.1% in real terms from 2023	Shows why the reporting year and inflation adjustment matter.

What counts as foreign aid in this ranking?

In everyday language, “foreign aid” can mean grants, emergency relief, development loans, military support, refugee assistance, technical cooperation, debt relief or even private philanthropy. The OECD’s ODA definition is narrower and more disciplined. ODA must be provided by official agencies, target economic development and welfare as its main objective, go to an eligible recipient or qualifying multilateral institution, and satisfy the relevant concessionality rules.2

The OECD’s framework has two important consequences. First, a loan is not automatically equivalent to a grant. Since 2018, headline ODA uses the grant-equivalent method for qualifying loans. The recorded aid value is intended to represent the donor effort embedded in the financing terms rather than simply counting the full face value of the loan. A highly concessional loan can therefore generate a larger ODA value than a less generous loan, while a commercial loan may not qualify as ODA at all.3

Second, the total can include items that readers may not instinctively call overseas aid. The OECD allows certain costs incurred inside donor countries, such as eligible in-donor refugee costs, to be reported as ODA when they meet the statistical rules. These items can materially affect a country’s annual ranking. In 2024, the OECD reported USD 27.8 billion in in-donor refugee costs across DAC members, equivalent to 13.1% of total DAC ODA.1 This does not mean that the money was transferred abroad; it means that the OECD’s ODA accounting rules treat qualifying first-year refugee-hosting costs as part of development-assistance statistics.

For that reason, a careful comparison should always state whether it is using gross or net ODA, whether the values are current or constant dollars, and whether the comparison is by absolute volume, GNI share or another indicator. The country table in this article uses the OECD’s headline 2024 preliminary country totals as presented in its press release, not a reconstructed total from individual programme budgets.

Top countries by absolute ODA in 2024

The following table ranks the five largest DAC country donors by total ODA in the OECD’s preliminary 2024 release. The European Union institutions are also a major provider in the DAC system, but they are not a sovereign country, so they are not placed in the country ranking.1 5

Rank	Country	2024 preliminary ODA	ODA as a share of GNI	Reading the figure correctly
1	United States	USD 63.3 billion	0.22%	Largest country donor by dollars, but not among the leaders by GNI share.
2	Germany	USD 32.4 billion	0.67%	Very large absolute donor, close to but below 0.7% in the 2024 preliminary release.
3	United Kingdom	USD 18.0 billion	0.50%	Large donor with a substantial bilateral and multilateral programme.
4	Japan	USD 16.8 billion	0.37%	Large bilateral provider with a significant loan component in its ODA portfolio.
5	France	USD 15.4 billion	0.48%	Major DAC provider; its total includes grants and grant-equivalent concessional lending.

The table answers the volume question, not the generosity question. The United States’ economy is much larger than Norway’s or Luxembourg’s, so a lower GNI ratio can coexist with the largest dollar total. Conversely, a small high-income economy can rank near the top on GNI share while contributing fewer dollars overall. Both measures are useful, but they describe different policy choices.

The OECD reported that total DAC ODA fell 7.1% in real terms in 2024, the first decline after five years of growth. It attributed the fall partly to lower contributions to international organisations, reduced aid for Ukraine, lower humanitarian aid and a reduction in reported refugee-hosting costs in donor countries.1 A year-to-year ranking should therefore not be interpreted as a permanent change in a country’s long-run aid policy. Exchange rates, emergency crises, debt operations, refugee arrivals and the timing of multilateral replenishments can all move the headline number.

1. United States: the largest donor by dollars

The United States ranked first among DAC country donors in 2024 with USD 63.3 billion of ODA, representing 0.22% of GNI in the OECD’s preliminary profile.6 Its scale gives the United States a distinctive position: even when its ODA-to-GNI ratio is below the DAC average, its absolute contribution can exceed the combined totals of several mid-sized donors.

The United States’ programme is spread across global health, humanitarian assistance, government and civil society, food security, economic development and fragile or conflict-affected settings. The OECD’s profile reports that the United States provided the largest volume of bilateral ODA among DAC members to humanitarian assistance, government and civil society, and health and population in 2023, the latest detailed sector year in that profile.6 That distinction matters because the 2024 headline total and the detailed sector tables do not necessarily use the same year, flow concept or level of aggregation.

The United States also illustrates why bilateral and multilateral aid should not be treated as mutually exclusive categories. Bilateral ODA can include funding earmarked through a multilateral organisation for a particular country, region or purpose. The OECD profile separates core multilateral contributions from earmarked non-core contributions, allowing readers to see whether a donor gives flexible funding to an institution or directs money toward a specified programme.6 A high bilateral share therefore does not automatically mean that a country works outside the UN system or development banks.

Geopolitical events strongly affect the United States’ annual total. The OECD reported that US net bilateral ODA to Ukraine was USD 9.6 billion in 2024, including USD 661 million in humanitarian assistance.6 Ukraine-related support is development assistance only to the extent that the individual activities meet the ODA eligibility rules; the total should not be read as a measure of ordinary long-term poverty programmes alone.

The United States’ ranking is thus best described in three sentences: it is the largest country donor by absolute ODA; its ODA-to-GNI ratio is lower than that of the leading European aid-effort countries; and its annual total reflects a mixture of global health, humanitarian, governance, development and crisis-response programmes.

2. Germany: a large donor with a broad European and global role

Germany ranked second among country donors in the OECD’s preliminary 2024 release with USD 32.4 billion of ODA. Germany’s aid effort was 0.67% of GNI in the same release, below the 0.7% reference target but much closer to it than the United States’ ratio.1 7

Germany’s development cooperation is distributed across bilateral programmes, multilateral contributions and humanitarian or crisis-related spending. Its federal system matters: the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development leads much of development cooperation, while other government institutions have responsibilities for humanitarian aid, crisis prevention, stabilisation and peacebuilding.7 This institutional division helps explain why a single national ODA number contains several policy channels rather than one central overseas-aid programme.

The OECD’s country profile reports that 78% of Germany’s gross ODA disbursements were bilateral in 2024, with part of that bilateral total channelled through multilateral organisations as earmarked contributions. Germany provided USD 12.6 billion of gross ODA to the multilateral system in 2024, including core contributions and non-core funding earmarked for a country, region, theme or purpose.7 The distinction is useful for readers who want to know not only how much Germany gives, but how much discretion it retains over the use of its contributions.

Germany’s portfolio also shows why the form of aid matters. In 2024, 83.2% of its ODA portfolio was provided as grants, 16.3% as loans and 0.5% as equity, according to the OECD profile.7 The percentages describe the composition of the portfolio, while the ODA total itself uses the OECD’s grant-equivalent rules for qualifying financing. They should not be confused with a claim that every dollar of a loan is a grant.

A significant share of Germany’s bilateral ODA was reported as in-donor refugee costs in 2024. The OECD profile records USD 6.3 billion in such costs and USD 1.8 billion in humanitarian aid.7 These items are part of the statistical explanation for Germany’s total, but they do not tell the whole story of German development cooperation, which also includes education, water and sanitation, climate, gender equality, governance and infrastructure.

3. United Kingdom: a major provider whose composition deserves scrutiny

The United Kingdom ranked third among country donors in the OECD’s preliminary 2024 data with USD 18.0 billion of ODA and an ODA-to-GNI ratio of 0.50%.1 8 It remains a major provider even though its volume is substantially below that of the United States and Germany.

The UK example is particularly useful for understanding the difference between a headline total and programmable development finance. The OECD profile reports that 78.4% of gross UK ODA disbursements were bilateral in 2024, but only 23.7% of gross bilateral ODA was classified as country-programmable aid. The same profile reports USD 3.6 billion in in-donor refugee costs, equal to 27.8% of gross bilateral ODA, and USD 1.4 billion in humanitarian aid.8

These figures do not prove that UK aid is ineffective or that refugee support is illegitimate. They show that a substantial portion of a year’s ODA total may be shaped by spending inside the donor country and by emergency conditions rather than by multi-year country programmes. Analysts should therefore distinguish between total ODA, country-programmable aid, humanitarian aid, in-donor refugee costs and core multilateral contributions.

The UK also contributes through the multilateral system. In 2024, the OECD reported USD 7.3 billion of gross UK ODA to the multilateral system, with both core and earmarked contributions. The World Food Programme, UNICEF and the World Health Organization were among the major UN recipients identified in the profile.8 This channel can help donors reach countries and populations that are difficult to support through a single bilateral agency, but earmarking can also reduce the flexibility of the multilateral institution.

For readers comparing countries, the lesson is straightforward: the UK’s third-place volume ranking is real within the OECD’s definition, but it should be read alongside the composition of that total and the country’s lower share of aid that is immediately programmable for partner-country development work.

4. Japan: a large bilateral provider with a distinctive loan profile

Japan ranked fourth among DAC country donors in the preliminary 2024 OECD release with USD 16.8 billion of ODA and an ODA-to-GNI ratio of 0.37%.1 9 Japan’s development cooperation has a distinctive financing profile because loans make up a larger share of its ODA than in many other DAC countries.

The OECD’s Japan profile states that 41.6% of Japan’s 2024 ODA was provided as grants and 58.4% as loans. These are not ordinary commercial loans automatically counted as aid. They are reported under the DAC’s concessional and grant-equivalent rules, which are designed to measure donor effort. A loan-heavy portfolio may support infrastructure, transport, energy and productive capacity while creating repayment obligations for the recipient; comparing it directly with a grant-heavy portfolio without mentioning the difference can obscure important trade-offs.2 3 9

Japan’s bilateral share was high in 2024. The OECD profile reports that 85.7% of gross bilateral ODA was delivered bilaterally, and that country-programmable aid represented 80.2% of gross bilateral ODA. Japan’s bilateral ODA focused primarily on Asia, with USD 9.4 billion allocated to Asia excluding the Middle East and USD 2.1 billion to Africa in the profile’s 2024 regional breakdown.9

Japan’s aid model places emphasis on infrastructure, regional connectivity, quality growth, disaster-risk reduction and human security. The country’s Development Cooperation Charter, revised in 2023, describes the policy framework, while the OECD profile provides the comparable statistical view.9 This is a reminder that the largest donors do not all pursue the same development theory: some prioritise grants and basic services, some use concessional lending for infrastructure, and many combine both.

5. France: a major European donor with grants and concessional lending

France ranked fifth among DAC country donors in the OECD’s preliminary 2024 release with USD 15.4 billion of ODA and an ODA-to-GNI ratio of 0.48%.1 10 France’s total is large enough to influence the overall DAC trend even though it is less than one quarter of the United States’ total.

France’s ODA portfolio combines grants, loans, multilateral contributions, humanitarian support, climate-related assistance and development cooperation with partner countries. The OECD country profile is the appropriate source for detailed composition data because the headline press release does not show every instrument or regional allocation.10

The key comparison is not simply whether France appears fifth. It is how France’s financing instruments and policy objectives differ from those of the other four countries. A grant can provide immediate fiscal support without creating a repayment obligation. A concessional loan can finance a larger infrastructure project while imposing debt-service obligations and requiring careful debt-sustainability analysis. Multilateral contributions can provide pooled expertise and common safeguards, while bilateral programmes can be tailored to a country relationship. A sound ranking article should describe these differences rather than implying that one dollar of every type of ODA has the same economic effect.

Who gives the most aid relative to national income?

Absolute dollars favour large economies. The GNI measure asks a different question: how much effort does a government make relative to the income generated by its economy? In 2024, the four DAC countries above the 0.7% reference target were Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden and Denmark.1

Country	2024 preliminary ODA as share of GNI	Interpretation
Norway	1.02%	Highest ratio among DAC members in the OECD’s preliminary 2024 release.
Luxembourg	1.00%	Very high aid effort relative to national income, despite a smaller absolute economy.
Sweden	0.79%	Above the 0.7% reference target.
Denmark	0.71%	Slightly above the reference target.

The ratio is not a perfect measure of generosity. GNI can change because of economic growth, exchange rates and national-account revisions. A country’s ODA ratio can rise during a recession even if its aid budget is flat, or fall during rapid growth even if its aid budget increases. The ratio also includes the same eligibility and accounting rules as the dollar total. It is therefore a useful indicator of effort, not a complete scorecard for aid quality.

The United Nations target has a long history in international development policy. UN materials describe the commitment for developed countries to devote 0.7% of GNI to ODA, with an additional reference for assistance to least-developed countries.16 17 The target is often quoted as if it were a universal mandatory budget rule. It is more accurately described as an internationally agreed policy benchmark that countries have adopted, interpreted and implemented with different domestic conditions and timelines.

What do donor countries spend aid on?

ODA is not one product. It is a portfolio of interventions with different time horizons and risk profiles. Humanitarian assistance addresses immediate needs during conflicts, natural disasters, epidemics and food crises. Development programmes aim at longer-term improvements in health, education, water, sanitation, governance, agriculture, transport, energy, climate resilience and economic opportunity. Debt relief can reduce a government’s payment burden, while technical cooperation can provide skills, systems and institutional support.

The OECD’s sector databases are more informative than a single headline ranking because they show where the money is allocated. The OECD’s DAC5 dataset provides ODA by sector and provider, while DAC2A shows disbursements to countries and regions.5 These tables also help prevent a common error: treating a donor’s total as if it were directed to one country or one sector. Large donors often spread their programmes across dozens of countries and multiple institutions.

The delivery channel also matters. Bilateral aid is associated with a government-to-country or government-directed relationship, although it may be implemented by NGOs, contractors or multilateral agencies. Core multilateral aid is provided to an institution without the same level of donor earmarking. Earmarked multilateral aid is channelled through a multilateral organisation for a specified country, theme or purpose. The OECD’s multilateral-system dashboard is designed to make these distinctions visible.13

A high humanitarian share is not automatically a sign of poor development policy. It may reflect a severe crisis in a partner country. At the same time, humanitarian relief does not substitute for long-term investment in institutions, livelihoods and public services. The two forms of assistance operate on different time horizons and should be assessed with different outcome measures.

Why do aid rankings change from year to year?

The first reason is that crises create exceptional spending. The OECD reported that net ODA to Ukraine fell 16.7% in real terms in 2024 but still amounted to USD 15.5 billion, or 7.4% of total net ODA.1 A donor with a large Ukraine programme can move up the annual ranking without changing its underlying long-term development strategy.

The second reason is refugee-hosting costs. Qualifying first-year costs inside donor countries can enter ODA, and the total can be substantial. The OECD reported that these costs fell 17.3% in 2024 to USD 27.8 billion across DAC members.1 The OECD’s dedicated guidance explains which migration- and refugee-related activities may qualify and under what conditions.14

The third reason is exchange rates and inflation. OECD comparisons often present both current-dollar and constant-price figures. A donor’s current-dollar total can fall because its currency weakened against the dollar even when its real domestic spending changed less. For this reason, the 2024 release’s 7.1% real decline should not be confused with a simple 7.1% fall in every donor’s nominal budget.

The fourth reason is the accounting of loans, debt relief and multilateral commitments. A loan’s grant equivalent depends on its terms and recipient category. A debt-relief operation can produce a large statistical movement in one year and little in another. A contribution to a replenishment can be booked differently from annual project disbursements. These are not statistical defects; they are reasons to read the methodology alongside the ranking.

Does the country that gives the most aid do the most good?

No single ranking can answer that question. Amounts measure resources, not results. To evaluate effectiveness, analysts need evidence about whether an intervention reached the intended population, whether outcomes changed, whether the change lasted, whether local institutions were strengthened, and whether the same objective could have been achieved at lower cost.

Some interventions have a strong evidence base. The World Bank has documented large-scale malaria-control programmes involving insecticide-treated nets, and it has described partnerships supporting vaccination and malaria prevention.19 20 These examples do not imply that every health project succeeds, but they show why aid can generate measurable benefits when a proven intervention is delivered at scale with local health systems and monitoring.

Other programmes are harder to evaluate. Infrastructure projects can produce benefits years after construction and may have effects that spread beyond the original project boundary. Governance reform can fail when political incentives do not support implementation. Budget support can strengthen public systems in one setting and reduce reform pressure in another. Humanitarian aid may prevent severe harm without producing an easily measured income increase. The right question is therefore not “Does foreign aid work?” in the abstract, but “Which intervention, delivered through which institution, under which conditions, produced which outcome?”

Aid quality also involves ownership and accountability. Partner-country governments and local organisations need meaningful influence over priorities, while donors need transparent procurement, safeguards, independent evaluation and public reporting. International aid principles emphasise country ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results and mutual accountability.21 These principles are not a guarantee of success, but they provide a stronger framework than simply ranking donors by money spent.

Foreign aid versus remittances and private finance

Foreign aid is only one source of external finance. Migrant workers send money directly to households, companies invest for commercial returns, philanthropies fund projects, and development banks lend on different terms. These flows should not be mixed into a donor ranking because they have different purposes, incentives and recipients.

The World Bank estimated that officially recorded remittances to low- and middle-income countries would reach USD 685 billion in 2024, larger than foreign direct investment and ODA combined.18 Its earlier 2024 outlook also described remittances as resilient and projected continued growth.22 Remittances are private transfers rather than government aid. They often go directly to families, can support consumption, education, housing and small businesses, and do not follow the same eligibility rules as ODA.

The comparison is valuable for scale but not for substitution. Remittances can be larger than ODA while being concentrated in countries with large migrant populations and offering little financing for public goods such as vaccination systems, refugee coordination, rural roads or climate adaptation. ODA can be smaller in aggregate but target needs that private senders have no reason or ability to finance. Foreign direct investment can create jobs and infrastructure but may move toward commercially attractive markets rather than the poorest or most fragile settings.

Why China and other non-DAC providers are not in the main table

China, Gulf donors, private foundations and development-finance institutions are important parts of the global development-finance landscape. They are not automatically comparable to DAC-member ODA. The OECD’s DAC statistics use a specific membership, recipient list and reporting methodology. A country outside the DAC may provide grants, concessional loans, commercial loans, infrastructure finance, export credits or other instruments that are measured differently or not reported in the same dataset.

This is why the article does not place China’s Belt and Road financing or a Gulf development bank beside the United States’ USD 63.3 billion in one table and call the result a complete world ranking. That would combine unlike categories and create false precision. A broader development-finance study should use separate tables for DAC ODA, non-DAC official finance, private philanthropy, remittances and foreign direct investment, with a clear explanation of each source’s coverage.

How to use this ranking responsibly

A reader can make the ranking more useful by asking five follow-up questions. First, is the comparison by current dollars, constant dollars or GNI share? Second, is the total gross or net, and does it include debt relief or in-donor refugee costs? Third, how much is grant finance versus the grant-equivalent value of loans? Fourth, is the aid bilateral, core multilateral or earmarked through a multilateral institution? Fifth, what evidence exists about results in the countries and sectors receiving the funds?

The OECD Data Explorer provides the underlying provider and recipient tables needed to answer those questions. The DAC list also defines which countries and territories are eligible for the ODA category, so the recipient universe is not simply “every country outside the donor’s borders.”5 12

For long-term comparisons, use several years rather than one crisis-affected year. For comparisons of burden-sharing, use ODA as a share of GNI. For comparisons of fiscal support to partner governments, examine country-programmable aid and the grant component. For comparisons of humanitarian response, isolate humanitarian ODA and consider the needs of the year. For comparisons of impact, move beyond expenditure data to evaluations and outcome indicators.

Frequently asked questions

Which country gives the most foreign aid?

The United States gave the most official development assistance among DAC country donors in the OECD’s preliminary 2024 data, with USD 63.3 billion. Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and France followed. This is an absolute-dollar ranking, not a ranking by aid effort relative to national income.1

Which country gives the most aid as a percentage of income?

Norway had the highest ODA-to-GNI ratio in the OECD’s preliminary 2024 release at 1.02%, followed by Luxembourg at 1.00%, Sweden at 0.79% and Denmark at 0.71%. These were the four DAC countries above the UN’s 0.7% reference target in that release.1

Is foreign aid the same as ODA?

No. ODA is the OECD’s defined statistical category for qualifying government-backed assistance aimed primarily at development and welfare. “Foreign aid” is a broader everyday phrase that may include activities or flows outside ODA. When comparing countries, ODA is useful because the rules and reporting system are more comparable.2 3

Do loans count as foreign aid?

Some concessional loans count as ODA, but the OECD records their grant-equivalent donor effort rather than treating the entire face value as a grant. Commercial loans and financing that fail the eligibility rules are not automatically ODA.2 3

Does ODA include refugee costs in the donor country?

Some in-donor refugee costs can qualify under OECD reporting rules. In 2024, the OECD reported USD 27.8 billion of such costs across DAC members. Analysts should therefore separate headline ODA from the portion that reached developing countries as overseas programmes.1 14

Are remittances larger than foreign aid?

According to a 2024 World Bank estimate, officially recorded remittances to low- and middle-income countries were expected to reach USD 685 billion, larger than FDI and ODA combined. Remittances are private transfers and are not part of the DAC ODA ranking.18

Does more aid always mean better development results?

No. Outcomes depend on the intervention, delivery institution, local context, implementation quality, political incentives and evaluation design. Amounts are an input measure. Evidence about results requires programme-level analysis rather than a country leaderboard.19 20 21

Conclusion

The United States is the largest country donor when foreign aid is measured as official development assistance in absolute dollars. Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and France follow in the OECD’s preliminary 2024 country ranking. But Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden and Denmark demonstrate a different type of leadership: they devote the largest shares of national income to ODA and exceeded the 0.7% reference target in 2024.1

The most useful conclusion is not that one ranking is correct and the other is wrong. Absolute dollars show the financial scale that a country can deploy; GNI shares show the effort a government makes relative to its economy. Neither measure tells us whether a programme worked. That requires attention to grants versus loans, bilateral versus multilateral delivery, refugee and humanitarian accounting, partner-country ownership, transparency and outcome evidence.

Foreign aid remains important, but it is one part of a much larger system that includes remittances, trade, private investment, climate finance, domestic taxation and public institutions in recipient countries. A high-quality comparison therefore treats the OECD ranking as a starting point for analysis, not as a final verdict on generosity or development impact.

This is research and analysis only, not personalized financial advice.

Related Reading

• Countries with the Largest Economies by GDP
• Countries with the Highest Tax Rates
• Countries That Host the Most Refugees
• Countries with the Best Quality of Life
• Countries with the Highest Income Inequality

References