Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is a measure of economic production, which takes the entire output of a national economy during a year and divides it by the population of that country. In the European Union, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Austria come out on top as the countries which produced the most per capita in 2024. Europe's richest countries benefit from multinational companies Many criticisms have been made of using GDP per capita as away to judge a country's economic wealth in recent years, as global capital flows have come to distort the statistics and to give a warped impression of different countries' wealth. This is most notably the case for Ireland and for Luxembourg, which while certainly high-income countries, have experienced dramatic booms in their GDP over the past two decades due to the accounting practices of the large multinational corporations which have their European headquarters in these member states, such as Facebook and Apple in Dublin, and Amazon in Luxembourg. Will the poorest countries converge towards the EU average? At the bottom of the list, two of the most recent member states of the EU, Romania and Bulgaria, come last in terms of GDP per capita. Whether these countries will be able to capitalize on their relatively low-wages to spur economic growth and experience the convergence towards the older member states of the union shown by countries such as Estonia, Czechia, and Lithuania, remains a pressing issue for these poorer member states.

This dataset provides values for GDP PER CAPITA PPP reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

As of 2025, there are **** official candidate countries for membership in the European Union, as well as Kosovo identified by the European Commission as a potential future candidate. A key element of the Copenhagen Criteria - the conditions which must be fulfilled to join the EU - is the existence of a functioning market economy in the candidate country, with the ability of the country to handle the strong competition and economic pressures which come with joining the European Single Market. While the political and administrative/institutional criteria have been considered the key stumbling block which has prevented the current candidate countries from progressing towards full membership, the current state of the economies of candidate countries is also a cause for concern. According to the most recently available data, all candidate countries have lower GDP per capita than even the poorest EU member state, Bulgaria. Ukraine, the newest candidate country, which was granted candidate status by the EU in response to Russia's invasion of the country in 2022, is the poorest candidate country, as measured by GDP per capita. This represents a serious issue, as the EU has never incorporated a country which is so far from the average economic standards of the Union. On the other hand, the chance to join the EU could provide an economic boost to Ukraine, or any other candidate country, as can be seen with the fast rising GDP per capita of countries which have joined the EU since 2004, such as Czechia, Hungary, and Poland.

Graph and download economic data for Gross Domestic Product Per Capita for the European Union (NYGDPPCAPCDEUU) from 1960 to 2024 about EU, Europe, per capita, and GDP.

In 2018 Turkey had the largest disparity between it's richest and poorest large regions in Europe, in terms of GDP per capita. The large small regions in Turkey are estimated to have around ***** times the GDP per capita of poor regions, with Hungary and Slovakia displaying significant regional disparities at this level.

For most of the 20th century, Ireland stood out as one of the poorest countries in Western Europe, not experience the same post-war boom in prosperity that was felt by virtually all other countries in the region. At the onset of the 1973-1975 Recession, Ireland's GDP per capita was less than 60 percent of GDP per capita in the European Union and less than a quarter of GDP per capita in the U.S. Catching up in the 1980s By the 1980s, a wave of foreign investment saw Ireland's export sector grow exponentially, and between 1975 and 1990, Ireland had the second-fastest growth of exports in the world (behind Japan). Additionally, as Ireland joined the European Communities in 1973, it became more integrated into the European economy; before 1973, around three-quarters of Ireland's exports went to the United Kingdom, but this fell to one-third by the 1990s. Ireland's period of industrialization was relatively short in comparison to its neighbors, as it transitioned from an agriculture-based economy to a producer of high-tech products and services. Ireland's low tax rate and other incentives also attracted many American tech companies in the 1980s, such as Apple, Intel, and Microsoft, who were keen on establishing a presence in the European Union. The Celtic Tiger Named after the Four Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan), which experienced rapid economic growth in the 1970s and 1980s, the period of prosperity between the 1990s and 2000s in Ireland has been dubbed the "Celtic Tiger." Over this time, Ireland's GDP per capita grew to exceed the average in the EU by 10 percent in 2000, and it would eventually surpass that of the U.S. in 2003. Ireland was severely impacted by the financial crisis of 2008 due to the instability of its property sector and extensive lending by banks, and it was the first European economy to go into recession. By the late 2010s, most sectors of the economy had returned to pre-recession levels, and today, Ireland's GDP per capita remains among the top in the world, second in the EU only to Luxembourg.

In 1950, at the end of the recovery period that followed the Second World War, GDP per capita across the Eastern Bloc varied greatly by country. Czechoslovakia, the most industrialized country in the Bloc after East Germany, had a GDP per capita that was 69 percent of the rate across Western European** countries. In contrast, Romania's GDP per capita was less than a quarter of the Western European average in 1950. 1950-1989 Generally speaking, Eastern European economies grew faster and made gains on those of the west (not including Mediterranean region) in the 1950s and 1960s, however, a series of recessions and increasing debts meant that this gap widened in the 1970s and 1980s. By 1989, as communism in Europe came to an end, the difference between overall GDP per capita in the Eastern and Western Blocs returned to a similar rate as in 1950, although it varied by country. The Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, three of the larger economies of those given, had a lower share of western GDP per capita in 1989 than in 1950, while the smaller economies of the Balkans saw an increase. 1989-2000 Between 1989 and 2000, the European Union's GDP per capita grew faster than in the former Eastern Bloc countries. However, the end of communism did negatively impact EU economies in the early 1990s. Poland was the only Eastern Bloc country to make gains on the west in these years, although this was more to do with its poor economy in the 1980s. The former-Soviet states, in particular, saw GDP per capita drop below one-quarter of the European Union's rate over this decade, as post-Soviet economic recovery did not realistically begin until the late 1990s.

In the decade that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communist systems in Eastern Europe, economic conditions across the region generally got worse before they improved. GDP per capita had been declining throughout most of the 1980s but fell dramatically as communism ended. In Central and Eastern Europe, economic recovery began in the early 1990s, whereas this process did not start until 1996 in the former-Soviet states. As a result, GDP per capita in Central and Eastern Europe had almost returned to its 1989 level within a decade, whereas GDP per capita in the former-Soviet states had dropped by 45 percent between 1989 and 1998. This transitionary period in the continent's east did have a knock-on effect on the continent's West. However, growth did continue. Additionally, GDP per capita was 2.2 times larger in the West than in the Soviet Union in 1989, but by 1998 it was 4.6 times larger.

The study examines how the recent economic crisis and the related unfavourable economic features affect poverty. As economic crisis is usually associated with many economic and social problems, it tries to determine to what extent it influences poverty. The paper attempts to prove that economic recession contributes not only to the impoverishment of a significant section of society, but also increases the depth of poverty significantly. If the research supports this hypothesis, it is worth examining to what extent one percent economic growth or economic decline can decrease or increase the rate of the poor and the depth of poverty. Besides the effect of economic growth on the given area, the paper also analyses the effect of the economic growth of the neighbouring areas. The initial hypothesis states that the economic growth of the neighbouring regions can also alleviate poverty. As for spatial effects, spatial autocorrelation is examined in the average income level to reveal how the economic growth of the neighbouring areas affects a given region. The study examines Northern Hungary, one of the most backward regions in Hungary (based on GDP per capita). Eurostat (2010) reports this region is among the poorest twenty regions within the European Union (based on GDP per capita PPP, Northern Hungary is the 259th among the 271 regions of the European Union).

In 2025, Luxembourg was the country with the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world. Of the 20 listed countries, 13 are in Europe and five are in Asia, alongside the U.S. and Australia. There are no African or Latin American countries among the top 20. Correlation with high living standards While GDP is a useful indicator for measuring the size or strength of an economy, GDP per capita is much more reflective of living standards. For example, when compared to life expectancy or indices such as the Human Development Index or the World Happiness Report, there is a strong overlap - 14 of the 20 countries on this list are also ranked among the 20 happiest countries in 2024, and all 20 have "very high" HDIs. Misleading metrics? GDP per capita figures, however, can be misleading, and to paint a fuller picture of a country's living standards then one must look at multiple metrics. GDP per capita figures can be skewed by inequalities in wealth distribution, and in countries such as those in the Middle East, a relatively large share of the population lives in poverty while a smaller number live affluent lifestyles.

Abstract

Over the past decade, Albania has been undergoing a transition toward a market economy and a more open society. It has faced severe internal and external challenges, such as lack of basic infrastructure, rapid collapse of output and inflation rise after the collapse of the communist regime, turmoil during the 1997 pyramid crisis, and social and economic instability because of the 1999 Kosovo crisis. Despite these shocks, Albanian economy has recovered from a very low income level through a sustained growth during the past few years, even though it remains one of the poorest countries in Europe, with GDP per capita at around 1,300$. Based on the Living Standard Measurement Study (LSMS) 2002 survey data (wave 1, henceforth), for the first time in Albania INSTAT has computed an absolute poverty line on a nationally representative poverty survey at household level. Based on this welfare measure, one quarter (25.4 percent) of the Albanian population, or close to 790,000 individuals, were defined as poor in 2002. The distribution of poverty is also disproportionately rural, as 68 percent of the poor are in rural areas, against 32 percent in urban areas (as compared to a total urban population well over 40 percent). These estimates are quite sensitive to the choice of the poverty line, as there are a large number of households clustered around the poverty line. Income related poverty is compounded by the severe lack of access to basic infrastructure, education and health services, clean water, etc., and the ability of the Government to address these issues is complicated by high levels of internal and external migration that are not well understood. The availability of a nationally representative survey is crucial as the paucity of household-level information has been a constraining factor in the design, implementation and evaluation of economic and social programs in Albania. Two recent surveys carried out by the Albanian Institute of Statistics (INSTAT) -the 1998 Living Conditions Survey (LCS) and the 2000 Household Budget Survey (HBS) - drew attention, once again, to the need for accurately measuring household welfare according to well-accepted standards, and for monitoring these trends on a regular basis. This target is well-achieved by drawing information over time on a panel component of LSMS 2002 households, namely the Albanian Panel Survey (APS), conducted in 2003 and 2004. An increasing attention to the policies aimed at achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is paid by the National Parliament of Albania, recently witnessed by the resolution approved in July 2003, where it pushes “… the total commitment of both state structures and civil society to achieve the MDGs in Albania by 2015”. The path towards a sustained growth is constantly monitored through the National Reports on Progress toward Achieving the MDGs, which involves a close collaboration of the UN with the national institutions, led by the National Strategy for Social and Economic Development (NSSED) Department of the Ministry of Finance. Also, in the process leading to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP; also known in Albania as Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy, GPRS), the Government of Albania reinforced its commitment to strengthening its own capacity to collect and analyse on a regular basis information it needs to inform policy-makers. In its first phase (2001-2006), this monitoring system will include the following data collection instruments:

(i) Population and Housing Census (ii) Living Standards Measurement Surveys every 3 years (iii) Annual panel surveys.

The focus during this first phase of the monitoring system is on a periodic LSMS (in 2002 and 2005), followed by panel surveys on a sub-sample of LSMS households (APS 2003, 2004 and 2006), drawing heavily on the 2001 census information. Here our target is to illustrate the main characteristics of the APS 2004 data with reference to the LSMS. The survey work was undertaken by the Living Standards Unit of INSTAT, with the technical assistance of the World Bank.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

(a) SAMPLE DESIGN

Panel sample, with LSMS 2002 and 2004 The APS 2004 collects information on 1,797 valid observations at household level and 7,476 at individual level. The sample of the second and third waves of the panel (APS) has been selected from the LSMS 2002 in order to be representative of Albanian households and individuals at national level. The LSMS 2002 differs from the APS 2003 and 2004 in that the former is designed to be representative at regional level (Mountain, Central, Coastal and Tirana) as well as for urban and rural domains, while the latter are for last domains only (urban and rural) LSMS 2002 sample design The LSMS is based on a probability sample of housing units (HUs) within the 16 strata of the sampling frame. It is divided in three regions: Coastal, Central, and Mountain Area. In addition, urban areas of Tirana are also considered as a separate region/stratum. The three regions are further stratified in major cities (the most important cities in the region), other urban (other cities in the region), and rural. The city of Tirana and its suburbs have been implicitly stratified to improve the efficiency of the sample design. Each stratum has been divided in Enumeration Area (EA), in accordance with the 2001 Census data, and each Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) selected with probabilities proportional to the number of occupied HUs in the EA. Every EA includes occupied and unoccupied HUs. Occupied rather than total units have been used because of the large number of empty dwellings registered in the Census data. The Housing Unit, defined as the space occupied by one household, is taken as sampling unit because is more permanent and easier to identify compared to the household. 10 EAs for each major city (75 for Tirana) and 65 EAs for each rural region -with the exception of the mountain area which is over-represented (75 EAs)- are selected. 8 households, plus 4 eventual substitutes, have been systematically selected in each EAs. As the LSMS consists of 450 EAs, total sample size is 3,600 households.

(b) STRATIFICATION

The panel component selected from the LSMS is designed to provide a nationally representative sample of households and individuals within Albania. It consists of roughly half of the households in the 2002 LSMS, interviewed both in 2003 and 2004. Contrarily to what done for the LSMS, no over-sampling in the Mountain Area has been performed for the panel survey. The sample is designed to minimize the variability in households' selection probabilities. It ensures national representativeness by matching the sample distribution across strata with the population distribution drawn from 2001 Census data. In Table 3 the ex-ante sampling scheme of the 2003-2004 APS is shown. Compared to the LSMS design, statistical precision has improved. Under equal stratum population variances hypothesis, sample design effects are expected to be around 1.02, compared to the 1.28 of the LSMS sample. Moreover, further precision is obtained by keeping all 450 EAs of LSMS in the panel sample, thus reducing the eventual bias due to clustering because of new design. Finally, the panel survey has a number of peculiar features that should be considered when using the data. The sample is designed to focus on individuals, who have been also traced when moving from the original household to a new one. This possibility represents the only way a household can enter the panel sample if it has not been already interviewed in the wave 1 (or in wave 2 for the APS 2004). If an original survey member (OSM) moves to a new household, his/her old and new household -and their members- are both included in the panel sample. Though a moved OSM will be present in the roster of both sampled households, he/she is a valid member only in the new one. In the old household he/she is considered as "moved away", hence not a valid member. This might generate some confusion. Three modalities exist to classify an individual in the third wave. First, when he/she is an OSM, that is a respondent interviewed both in wave 1 and 2. Second, when he is a re-joiner from 2002, that is an OSM not interviewed in 2003 (i.e. because temporarily absent) who returns in 2004. Third, when he/she is a new member, whenever he/she is a newborn of an original household, a member joined by an OSM or a person who co-resides with an original survey household. So, the APS is an indefinite life panel study, without replacement by drawing new sample units. From wave 2, only individuals aged 15 years and over are considered valid members, hence eligible for the interview. Individuals moved out of Albania are not accounted as valid for this survey year, though they are still eligible for future waves.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

A first data cleaning took place in Albania and implemented by INSTAT in collaboration with ISER and Government of Albania consultants. The cleaning process has involved following activities: 1. defining data checking routines and writing the syntax code of the cleaning programs; 2. generating lists of outliers and inconsistencies for each module to be checked against paper questionnaires; During the first few days, data cleaning operators have been working on the Export Procedure of the Data Entry Program to check if data export succeeded and to finalize the English version of the dictionaries and error messages. Some changes were made to the Export Procedure due to a problem on the “Agriculturea2” file conversion and to the

With a Gross Domestic Product of over 4.18 trillion Euros, the German economy was by far the largest in Europe in 2023. The similarly sized economies of the United Kingdom and France were the second and third largest economies in Europe during this year, followed by Italy and Spain. The smallest economy in this statistic is that of the small Balkan nation of Montenegro, which had a GDP of 5.7 billion Euros. In this year, the combined GDP of the 27 member states that compose the European Union amounted to approximately 17.1 trillion Euros. The big five Germany’s economy has consistently had the largest economy in Europe since 1980, even before the reunification of West and East Germany. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has had mixed fortunes during the same period and had a smaller economy than Italy in the late 1980s. The UK also suffered more than the other major economies during the recession of the late 2000s, meaning the French economy was the second largest on the continent for some time afterward. The Spanish economy was continually the fifth-largest in Europe in this 38-year period, and from 2004 onwards, has been worth more than one trillion Euros. The smallest GDP, the highest economic growth in Europe Despite having the smallerst GDP of Europe, Montenegro emerged as the fastest growing economy in the continent, achieving an impressive annual growth rate of 4.5 percent, surpassing Turkey's growth rate of 4 percent. Overall,this Balkan nation has shown a remarkable economic recovery since the 2010 financial crisis, with its GDP projected to grow by 28.71 percent between 2024 and 2029. Contributing to this positive trend are successful tourism seasons in recent years, along with increased private consumption and rising imports. Europe's economic stagnation Malta, Albania, Iceland, and Croatia were among the countries reporting some of the highest growth rates this year. However, Europe's overall performance reflected a general slowdown in growth compared to the trend seen in 2021, during the post-pandemic recovery. Estonia experienced the sharpest negative growth in 2023, with its economy shrinking by 2.3% compared to 2022, primarily due to the negative impact of sanctions placed on its large neighbor, Russia. Other nations, including Sweden, Germany, and Finland, also recorded slight negative growth.

Over the past decade, Albania has been undergoing a transition toward a market economy and a more open society. It has faced severe internal and external challenges, such as lack of basic infrastructure, rapid collapse of output and inflation rise after the collapse of the communist regime, turmoil during the 1997 pyramid crisis, and social and economic instability because of the 1999 Kosovo crisis. Despite these shocks, Albanian economy has recovered from a very low income level through a sustained growth during the past few years, even though it remains one of the poorest countries in Europe, with GDP per capita at around 1,300$. Based on the Living Standard Measurement Study (LSMS) 2002 survey data (wave 1, henceforth), for the first time in Albania INSTAT has computed an absolute poverty line on a nationally representative poverty survey at household level. Based on this welfare measure, one quarter (25.4 percent) of the Albanian population, or close to 790,000 individuals, were defined as poor in 2002. The distribution of poverty is also disproportionately rural, as 68 percent of the poor are in rural areas, against 32 percent in urban areas (as compared to a total urban population well over 40 percent). These estimates are quite sensitive to the choice of the poverty line, as there are a large number of households clustered around the poverty line. Income related poverty is compounded by the severe lack of access to basic infrastructure, education and health services, clean water, etc., and the ability of the Government to address these issues is complicated by high levels of internal and external migration that are not well understood. The availability of a nationally representative survey is crucial as the paucity of household-level information has been a constraining factor in the design, implementation and evaluation of economic and social programs in Albania. Two recent surveys carried out by the Albanian Institute of Statistics (INSTAT) –the 1998 Living Conditions Survey (LCS) and the 2000 Household Budget Survey (HBS)– drew attention, once again, to the need for accurately measuring household welfare according to well-accepted standards, and for monitoring these trends on a regular basis. This target is well-achieved by drawing information over time on a panel component of LSMS 2002 households, namely the Albanian Panel Survey (APS), conducted in 2003 and 2004. An increasing attention to the policies aimed at achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is paid by the National Parliament of Albania, recently witnessed by the resolution approved in July 2003, where it pushes “[...] the total commitment of both state structures and civil society to achieve the MDGs in Albania by 2015”. The path towards a sustained growth is constantly monitored through the National Reports on Progress toward Achieving the MDGs, which involves a close collaboration of the UN with the national institutions, led by the National Strategy for Social and Economic Development (NSSED) Department of the Ministry of Finance. Also, in the process leading to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP; also known in Albania as Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy, GPRS), the Government of Albania reinforced its commitment to strengthening its own capacity to collect and analyze on a regular basis information it needs to inform policy-makers. In its first phase (2001-2006), this monitoring system will include the following data collection instruments: (i) Population and Housing Census; (ii) Living Standards Measurement Surveys every 3 years, and (iii) annual panel surveys. The focus during this first phase of the monitoring system is on a periodic LSMS (in 2002 and 2005), followed by panel surveys on a sub-sample of LSMS households (APS 2003, 2004 and 2006), drawing heavily on the 2001 census information. Here our target is to illustrate the main characteristics of the APS 2004 data with reference to the LSMS. The survey work was undertaken by the Living Standards Unit of INSTAT, with the technical assistance of the World Bank.

In 2000, Poland was the poorest country in the Visegrad group. In 2022, its GDP per capita was already close to ** percent of the EU average, placing it on the podium just behind Czechia.

The BRICS countries overtook the G7 countries share of the world's total gross domestic product (GDP) in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) in 2018. By 2024, the difference had increased even further, the BRICS now holding a total 35 percent of the world's GDP compared to 30 percent held by the G7 countries.

This statistic shows the national debt of Greece from 2020 to 2023, with projections until 2030. In 2023, the national debt in Greece was around 420.4 billion U.S. dollars. In a ranking of debt to GDP per country, Greece is currently ranked third. Greece's struggle after the financial crisis Greece is a developed country in the EU and is highly dependent on its service sector as well as its tourism sector in order to gain profits. After going through a large economic boom from the 1950s to the 1970s as well as somewhat high GDP growth in the early to mid 2000s, Greece’s economy took a turn for the worse and struggled intensively, primarily due to the Great Recession, the Euro crisis as well as its own debt crisis. National debt within the country saw significant gains over the past decades, however roughly came to a halt due to financial rescue packages issued from the European Union in order to help Greece maintain and improve their economical situation. The nation’s continuous rise in debt has overwhelmed its estimated GDP over the years, which can be attributed to poor government execution and unnecessary spending. Large sums of financial aid were taken from major European banks to help balance out these government-induced failures and to potentially help refuel the economy to encourage more spending, which in turn would decrease the country’s continuously rising unemployment rate. Investors, consumers and workers alike are struggling to see a bright future in Greece, whose chances of an economic comeback are much lower than that of other struggling countries such as Portugal and Italy. However, Greece's financial situation might improve in the future, as it is estimated that at least its national debt will decrease - slowly, but steadily. Still, since its future participation in the European Union is in limbo as of now, these figures can only be estimates, not predictions.

As a share of the country’s GDP, China’s average infrastructure spending in 2022 was nearly ** times higher than that of the United States. Indeed, at *** percent of its GDP, China's investments were significantly higher than anywhere else in the world. By comparison, investments in Central & Eastern Europe - the CEE region - were relatively higher than those in their Western European counterparts. Infrastructure construction and development The construction industry plays a significant role in most economies. The reason for that is that public investment into essential infrastructure enables the economy to function properly and be well connected. Without transportation and energy infrastructure, which were the two types of infrastructure with the highest construction spending in the U.S., or telecommunication networks, such as 5G base stations, many industries could not perform their activities. Infrastructure needs Despite the importance of infrastructure for the wellbeing of communities, infrastructure investment is sub par in many countries across the world. As of 2020, projected infrastructure spending was estimated to be unable to fulfill spending needs in the United States, where the aging infrastructure is in dire need of repair. Although as seen here, China was the country with the highest investment in infrastructure relative to its GDP, as of 2019, it also has higher projected infrastructure needs than most regions.

Healthcare spending in the United Kingdom (UK) as a share of the gross domestic product (GDP) has increased since 1990, when it was 5.1 percent. By 2023, healthcare expenditure in the UK amounted 10.9 percent of the GDP. Health expenditure in the UK compared to Europe  In comparison to other European countries in 2022, the UK ranked fifth highest in terms of healthcare spending as a share of the GDP. Top of the list was Germany, which spent 12.7 percent of its GDP on healthcare in this year. This was followed by France and Austria, which spent 11.9 percent and 11.4 percent on health, respectively. Performance of the NHS in the UK  Individuals in the UK still regard the NHS as a world class health service and remain happy with the high level of care provided by the organization. Although waiting times have been getting worse in the A&E department over the years. The NHS has been falling behind the target that 95 percent of patients should be seen within four hours of arrival. As a result, the primary reasons for dissatisfaction with the NHS among the public are the length of time required to get a GP or hospital appointment and the lack of staff.   

In 2023, the United States had the highest gross household disposable income per capita in OECD countries adjusted for purchasing power parity. Their disposable income per capita was over ****** U.S. dollars. Luxembourg followed in second with around ****** U.S. dollars, with Switzerland in third.

In 2025, the United States government donated around 1.2 billion U.S. dollars in humanitarian aid worldwide. The European Commission and Germany followed with over 1.25 U.S. dollars. However, this only shows one part of the picture, as the largest economies are likely to be the largest donors. Another way of looking at the largest donors are by how much each country gave as a share of their gross domestic product.