Denmark donated the most significant percentage of its 2021 gross domestic product (GDP) to help Ukraine over the period between January 2022, and June 2025. Denmark contributed 2.89 percent of its GDP in bilateral aid, followed by Estonia with 2.8 percent of GDP. Besides the Nordic and Baltic countries, the Netherlands donated the largest share of GDP. Western countries sent aid to Ukraine in view of the Russian invasion that began in February 2022. Who donated the most to Ukraine? In absolute terms, the largest bilateral aid allocations to Ukraine were made by the United States, at over 114 billion euros as of June 2025. European Union (EU) institutions, such as the European Commission and the European Council, allocated the second-largest amount of assistance, at almost 63.2 billion euros. The United Kingdom (UK) was the fourth-leading source of bilateral aid. EU aid to Ukraine The EU has supported Ukraine with over 69 billion euros in financial assistance as of January 2022. Of them, the largest share of aid has been provided as additional loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Among EU members, Germany allocated the largest amount of bilateral aid to Ukraine from January 24, 2022, at around 22 billion euros, while Estonia allocated the largest share of GDP.

From January 24, 2022, to June 30, 2025, the European Union (EU) institutions, such as the Commission and the EU Council, provided around 63.2 billion euros in bilateral financial, humanitarian, and military aid to Ukraine in view of the Russian invasion that started in February 2022. The highest value of allocations was recorded from the United States at over 114 billion euros. U.S. aid to Ukraine As of June 30, 2025, the value of U.S. bilateral aid allocations to Ukraine represented 0.53 percent of 2021 donor GDP. The U.S. donated the largest amount of bilateral military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Generally, U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine has increased since 2015. Where does military aid to Ukraine come from? The U.S., Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), and Denmark were the largest suppliers of military aid to Ukraine. In monetary terms, the U.S. bilateral military assistance to the country reached approximately 64.6 billion euros as of June 30, 2025. As part of that aid, the U.S. transported over 7,700 air defense missiles and over 1,600 air defense systems to Ukraine and other European partners. Furthermore, the U.S. delivered the most units of M777 howitzer artillery to the country.

The average for 2022 based on 130 countries was 1147.12 million U.S. dollars. The highest value was in Ukraine: 28732.43 million U.S. dollars and the lowest value was in China: -282.32 million U.S. dollars. The indicator is available from 1960 to 2022. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

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.

The novel coronavirus pandemic has unsettled the political, economic and social structures of the world. Yet, in the context of global economies in recession, opportunities also abound for many countries, including in Africa, to pursue new directions in governance and management. For instance, the pandemic may be closing gaps between the so-called developed and the developing worlds, thereby giving African countries some geopolitical and economic leverage, both in terms of international alliances and managing fiscal challenges. This project, using the case of Sierra Leonne, focuses on how African countries can chart new paths is their management and governance of foreign aid. The project investigates how aid-funded projects are implemented in Africa using the yardstick of the World Bank’s International Good Governance Standard and, in the process, answers the question of how African countries can alternatively and efficiently administer and manage foreign aid-funded projects? This question is important because Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the world’s most aided regions. Aid as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the region has averaged around 5% for much of the past two decades. Aid has reached nearly 10% at times and still equals nearly 6% of the region’s GDP. Yet, the growth records of nearly all African countries have thus far been unsatisfactory compared with the amount of aid funds received. The case of high aid flows into African economies, on one hand, and evidence of abysmal growth outcomes, on the other, have led to questions about the usefulness of foreign aid. At a time when Africa’s traditional donor countries are biting the dust, due to the pandemic, these questions become even more crucial. The project calls for a rethink of Africa’s economic management practices to meet the needs of present times.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a measure of the total economic output of a country. It is the sum of all the goods and services produced within a country over a given period. The GDP of a country is an important indicator of its economic health and can be used to compare the economic performance of different countries.

According to the World Bank, the United States has the highest GDP of any country in the world, with a value of $23.3 trillion. The American economy is one of the most diversified and technologically advanced in the world which contributes to the US’s large GDP. China is the second-largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $17.7 trillion. Japan, Germany, India, the United Kingdom, and France round out the top seven, all with GDPs over $3 trillion.

On the other hand, there are countries with low GDPs. The country with the lowest GDP in the world is Nauru, with a value of $133.2 million. Palau, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and São Tomé and Príncipe are some other countries with low GDPs. These countries are typically characterized by limited natural resources, small populations, geographic isolation, and a heavy reliance on tourism or foreign aid.

It is important to note that GDP is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the economic well-being of a country’s citizens. While a high GDP indicates a large and productive economy, it does not necessarily mean that all citizens are equally prosperous. Countries with lower GDPs may also have a higher standard of living if income is distributed more equally among the population.

This paper shows that foreign aid has a significant positive average effect on real per capita gross domestic product (GDP) growth if, and only if, the quantitatively large negative reverse causal effect of per capita GDP growth on foreign aid is adjusted for in the growth regression. Instrumental variables estimates show that a 1 percentage point increase in GDP per capita growth decreased foreign aid by over 4%. Adjusting for this quantitatively large, negative reverse causal effect of economic growth on foreign aid shows that a 1% increase in foreign aid increased real per capita GDP growth by around 0.1 percentage points.

Ukraine UA: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data was reported at 3.413 % in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3.672 % for 2016. Ukraine UA: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data is updated yearly, averaging 2.829 % from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2017, with 25 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 4.125 % in 1997 and a record low of 0.465 % in 1993. Ukraine UA: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Ukraine – Table UA.World Bank.WDI: Defense and Official Development Assistance. Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country). Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous military activities, such as for veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons. This definition cannot be applied for all countries, however, since that would require much more detailed information than is available about what is included in military budgets and off-budget military expenditure items. (For example, military budgets might or might not cover civil defense, reserves and auxiliary forces, police and paramilitary forces, dual-purpose forces such as military and civilian police, military grants in kind, pensions for military personnel, and social security contributions paid by one part of government to another.); ; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security.; Weighted average; Data for some countries are based on partial or uncertain data or rough estimates.

this project was realized in tableu :

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2Fabd3ec517174b8e60cad040082f9a33e%2Fgrap2.png?generation=1709409458890934&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F1933a6c3a6bf82d079390ca775fdcba2%2Fgrap1.png?generation=1709409464772791&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F221c6415e1b9d997cf582d7f75c69ace%2Fgraph3.png?generation=1709409471157116&alt=media" alt="">

Governments around the world rely on tax revenues as a primary means to sustainably finance their operations, including providing infrastructure, public services, and paying for their employees. However, the extent to which countries collect taxes varies significantly, as illustrated by data from the United Nations showing government tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product (GDP).

In many European nations, tax revenues represent over a third of GDP, with countries like France and Denmark reaching levels as high as about half. These figures underscore the significant role of taxation in funding public expenditures in these countries.

Conversely, in most other parts of the world, tax revenues constitute a smaller portion of GDP. In some countries, taxes make up only a few percent of GDP, reflecting lower levels of government intervention in the economy or differing tax structures.

It's essential to recognize that variations in tax revenues are not solely attributable to differences in the capacity to collect taxes. While some variations may indeed reflect disparities in administrative capabilities or enforcement mechanisms, others stem from deliberate policy choices and political preferences regarding the level of taxation.

Moreover, reliance on alternative revenue sources, such as revenues from natural resources or foreign aid, can introduce volatility and uncertainty into a government's fiscal position. Therefore, the ability to effectively collect taxes remains crucial for ensuring stability and predictability in financing government activities.

Taxation also serves broader economic and social objectives beyond revenue generation. For instance, progressive taxation can contribute to reducing income inequality by redistributing wealth and funding social welfare programs. Conversely, lower tax rates may stimulate economic growth by incentivizing investment and consumption.

However, the optimal level and structure of taxation are subjects of ongoing debate and vary depending on economic conditions, societal preferences, and political ideologies. Governments must strike a balance between raising sufficient revenue to finance public expenditures and minimizing distortions and inefficiencies caused by taxation.

Furthermore, tax policies should be designed with consideration for their potential impact on economic behavior, investment decisions, and international competitiveness. International cooperation and coordination are also essential, particularly in addressing issues such as tax evasion, avoidance, and base erosion in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

In conclusion, while countries differ significantly in the extent to which they collect taxes, taxation remains a fundamental tool for financing government activities and achieving broader economic and social objectives. Effective tax policies must strike a balance between revenue generation, economic efficiency, equity, and international competitiveness to ensure sustainable fiscal outcomes and support inclusive growth and development.

The UK government spent approximately 7.7 billion British pounds on foreign economic aid in 2024/25, compared with 7.3 billion pounds in the previous financial year.

State fragility has received an increasing attention in recent decades as a result of the nexus between development and international stability. This study investigates the empirical drivers of state fragility in sub-Saharan Africa from 2007 to 2019. We shed light on the explanatory variables of government effectiveness, political stability, per-capita GDP, grow GDP%, International Monetary Fund (IMF loans), and Official Development Assistance (ODA). Using panel data analysis and a 39-country sample, our study finds that government efficiency and political stability, in contrast to foreign aid, has a significant effect on reducing fragility in sub-Saharan Africa. In light of these findings, the article proposes delivering foreign aid in ways that strengthen state capacity. Devlet kırılganlığı, kalkınma ve uluslararası istikrar arasındaki bağlantının bir sonucu olarak son yıllarda giderek artan bir ilgi görmektedir. Bu makale, 2007-2019 yılları arasında Sahra Altı Afrika'da devlet kırılganlığının ampirik belirleyicilerini araştırmaktadır. Çalışmada, hükümet etkinliği, siyasi istikrar, kişi başına GSYİH, büyüme, Uluslararası Para Fonu (IMF kredileri) ve Resmi Kalkınma Yardımı (ODA) gibi açıklayıcı değişkenlere odaklanılmaktadır. Panel veri analizi ve 39 ülke örneğini kullanan çalışma, hükümet etkinliğinin ve siyasi istikrarın, dış yardımın aksine, Sahra Altı Afrika'daki kırılganlığı azaltmada olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu tespit etmiştir. Bu bulgular ışığında, makale, dış yardımın devlet kapasitesini güçlendirecek şekillerde sağlanmasını önermektedir.

this graph was created in PowerBI,Loocker Studio and Tableau <>

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F66d135656595a97784d403fd549a02e2%2Fgraph2.jpg?generation=1715544519559742&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F3d8ba82149b26bea8c7bf8f1949fe4e2%2Fgraph3.jpg?generation=1715544525554547&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F9b130f646510a14859e337e5a84da6b0%2Fgraph1.png?generation=1715544531263277&alt=media" alt="">

State capacity is the ability of governments to effectively implement their policies and achieve their goals.

The goals of governments vary a lot, and some governments are much more ambitious than others. However, they typically include protecting their citizens against internal and external threats and encouraging economic activity.

The policies they pursue to achieve these goals range from keeping other governments from interfering in their actions, disarming other violent actors within their territory, upholding the rule of law, and providing infrastructure and other public goods.

To do that, states must sustainably raise sufficient resources, usually by collecting taxes; hire skilled and impartial security forces and public servants; and gather accurate information about their populations, among other things.

Understanding state capacity is crucial because it shapes a country's ability to address its many challenges. On this page, you can find related data and visualizations on how state capacity differs around the globe and how this has been changing over time.

Countries differ a lot in how much taxes they collect Governments must sustainably raise sufficient resources to pay for their employees and policies, such as providing infrastructure and public services. They usually do so by collecting taxes.

The map, drawing on data from the UN, shows that countries differ greatly in how much taxes they collect. Here, this is expressed as government tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product (GDP).

In many European countries, tax revenues sum up to over a third of GDP. In France and Denmark, it is about half.

In most other countries in the world, it is much less. In a few, taxes make up only a few percent of GDP.

Importantly, differences in tax revenues only partially reflect different abilities to collect them. Some of these differences are also due to policy choices and political preferences for higher or lower taxation.

But because other types of revenues, such as natural resources and foreign aid, can be volatile, collecting taxes remains at the heart of countries’ ability to finance their actions.

This study examines the determinants influencing the likelihood of Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries seeking assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF, as a global institution, aims to promote sustainable growth and prosperity among its member countries by supporting economic strategies that foster financial stability and collaboration in monetary affairs. Utilising panel-probit regression, this study analyses data from thirty-nine SSA countries spanning from 2000 to 2022, focusing on twelve factors: Current Account Balance (CAB), inflation, corruption, General Government Net Lending and Borrowing (GGNLB), General Government Gross Debt (GGGD), Gross Domestic Product Growth (GDPG), United Nations Security Council (UNSC) involvement, regime types (Closed Autocracy, Electoral Democracy, Electoral Autocracy, Liberal Democracy) and China Loan. The results indicate that corruption and GDP growth rate have the most significant influence on the likelihood of SSA countries seeking IMF assistance. Conversely, factors such as CAB, UNSC involvement, LD and inflation show inconsequential effects. Notable, countries like Sudan, Burundi, and Guinea consistently rank high in seeking IMF assistance over various time frames within the observed period. Sudan emerges with a probability of more than 44% in seeking IMF assistance, holding the highest ranking. Study emphasises the importance of understanding SSA region rankings and the variability of variables for policymakers, investors, and international organisations to effectively address economic challenges and provide financial assistance.

Goal 17Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable DevelopmentTarget 17.1: Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collectionIndicator 17.1.1: Total government revenue as a proportion of GDP, by sourceGR_G14_GDP: Total government revenue (budgetary central government) as a proportion of GDP (%)GR_G14_XDC: Total government revenue, in local currencyIndicator 17.1.2: Proportion of domestic budget funded by domestic taxesGC_GOB_TAXD: Proportion of domestic budget funded by domestic taxes (% of GDP)Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance (ODA/GNI) to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countriesIndicator 17.2.1: Net official development assistance, total and to least developed countries, as a proportion of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee donors’ gross national income (GNI)DC_ODA_SIDSG: Net official development assistance (ODA) to small island states (SIDS) as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI, by donor countries (%)DC_ODA_LDCG: Net official development assistance (ODA) to LDCs as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI, by donor countries (%)DC_ODA_LLDC: Net official development assistance (ODA) to landlocked developing countries from OECD-DAC countries, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_SIDS: Net official development assistance (ODA) to small island states (SIDS) from OECD-DAC countries, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_LDCS: Net official development assistance (ODA) to LDCs from OECD-DAC countries, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_LLDCG: Net official development assistance (ODA) to landlocked developing countries as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI, by donor countries (%)DC_ODA_TOTG: Net official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI, by donor countries (%)DC_ODA_TOTL: Net official development assistance (ODA) from OECD-DAC countries, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_TOTLGE: Official development assistance (ODA) from OECD-DAC countries on grant equivalent basis, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_TOTGGE: Official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI on grant equivalent basis, by donor countries (%)Target 17.3: Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sourcesIndicator 17.3.1: Foreign direct investment, official development assistance and South-South cooperation as a proportion of gross national incomeGF_FRN_FDI: Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows (millions of US dollars)Indicator 17.3.2: Volume of remittances (in United States dollars) as a proportion of total GDPBX_TRF_PWKR: Volume of remittances (in United States dollars) as a proportion of total GDP (%)Target 17.4: Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distressIndicator 17.4.1: Debt service as a proportion of exports of goods and servicesDT_TDS_DECT: Debt service as a proportion of exports of goods and services (%)Target 17.5: Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countriesIndicator 17.5.1: Number of countries that adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for developing countries, including the least developed countriesSG_CPA_SIGN_BIT: Number of countries with a signed bilateral investment treaty (BIT) (Number)SG_CPA_INFORCE_BIT: Number of countries with an inforce bilateral investment treaty (BIT) (Number)Target 17.6: Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge-sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanismIndicator 17.6.1: Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed5IT_NET_BBNDN: Number of fixed Internet broadband subscriptions, by speed (number)IT_NET_BBND: Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed (per 100 inhabitants)Target 17.7: Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreedIndicator 17.7.1: Total amount of funding for developing countries to promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologiesTarget 17.8: Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technologyIndicator 17.8.1: Proportion of individuals using the InternetIT_USE_ii99: Internet users per 100 inhabitantsTarget 17.9: Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperationIndicator 17.9.1: Dollar value of financial and technical assistance (including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation) committed to developing countriesDC_FTA_TOTAL: Total official development assistance (gross disbursement) for technical cooperation (millions of 2018 United States dollars)Target 17.10: Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development AgendaIndicator 17.10.1: Worldwide weighted tariff-averageTM_TAX_WMFN: Worldwide weighted tariff-average, most-favoured-nation status, by type of product (%)TM_TAX_WMPS: Worldwide weighted tariff-average, preferential status, by type of product (%)Target 17.11: Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020Indicator 17.11.1: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global exportsTX_IMP_GBMRCH: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global merchandise imports (%)TX_EXP_GBMRCH: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global merchandise exports (%)TX_EXP_GBSVR: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global services exports (%)TX_IMP_GBSVR: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global services imports (%)Target 17.12: Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market accessIndicator 17.12.1: Weighted average tariffs faced by developing countries, least developed countries and small island developing StatesTM_TAX_DMFN: Average tariff applied by developed countries, most-favored nation status, by type of product (%)TM_TAX_DPRF: Average tariff applied by developed countries, preferential status, by type of product (%)Target 17.13: Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherenceIndicator 17.13.1: Macroeconomic DashboardTarget 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable developmentIndicator 17.14.1: Number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence of sustainable developmentSG_CPA_SDEVP: Mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development (%)Target 17.15: Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable developmentIndicator 17.15.1: Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperationSG_PLN_PRVRIMON: Proportion of results indicators which will be monitored using government sources and monitoring systems - data by provider (%)SG_PLN_RECRIMON: Proportion of results indicators which will be monitored using government sources and monitoring systems - data by recipient (%)SG_PLN_PRVNDI: Proportion of project objectives of new development interventions drawn from country-led result frameworks - data by provider (%)SG_PLN_RECNDI: Proportion of project objectives in new development interventions drawn from country-led result frameworks - data by recipient (%)SG_PLN_PRVRICTRY: Proportion of results indicators drawn from country-led results frameworks - data by provider (%)SG_PLN_RECRICTRY: Proportion of results indicators drawn from country-led results frameworks - data by recipient (%)SG_PLN_REPOLRES: Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation - data by recipient (%) SG_PLN_PRPOLRES: Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of

In fiscal year 2019, India spent an estimated *** percent of its overall budget on various grants and loans to foreign governments as aid. However, the highest expenditure allocation on foreign aid during the measured time period was in fiscal year 2016.

• Attention and interest on international issues related to different countries.
• Most important objectives for Spain in international politics.
• Image of the Ibero-American countries in Spain and for the interviewee.
• Spain's relations with Latin America in economic, political, cultural, scientific/technical and sporting aspects.
• Most important objectives for Spain in international policy with Latin America.
• Similarities, common interests and union in the future between Spain and Latin American or European countries.
• Knowledge of the annual celebration of the Ibero-American Summit.
• Importance of the Ibero-American Summit for the countries of Latin America and for Spain.
• Agreement with various statements on the Ibero-American Summits: They strengthen political and economic ties, poor practical results, boost cooperation, and recent summits have lost relevance.
• Main problems that currently exist in the world. Opinion on the cooperation of Spain to the development of other peoples and the role of the State in international aid and cooperation.
• Countries to which Spanish development cooperation is directed and to which it should be directed.
• Evaluation of the resources that Spain dedicates to international cooperation for development and knowledge of the reduction of funds in recent years due to the crisis. Knowledge of the objective of industrialized countries to devote 0.7% of their GDP to help less developed countries. Opinion on whether Spain should dedicate 0.7% of its GDP. Knowledge of the percentage of Spanish GDP that is dedicated to helping less developed countries.
• Important aspects in development cooperation: human rights, health, indigenous peoples, poverty,... Knowledge of the United Nations Millennium Goals. Likelihood of achieving the various Goals. Knowledge of the resources that your Autonomous Community or City Council dedicates to cooperation with developing countries. Opinion on whether they should devote part of their resources.
• Agreement on the form of financing of NGOs.
• Most important task to be performed by NGDOs. Composition of NGOs to make their work effective.
• Participation in the interviewee's development cooperation.
• Box marked for allocation in the Income Statement.
• Influence on relations between Spain and Latin America of Latin American immigrants.
• Main cause of the immigration that Spain receives. Changes in the image of Latin America due to the presence of Latin American immigrants and the degree of agreement with a series of opinions about them.
• Beneficiary of the work done by immigrants from less developed countries.
• Agreement that there would be fewer immigrants if cooperation between countries were greater.
• Effect of the economic situation on immigrant and Spanish workers.
• Opinions on Spanish immigration policy and changes that should be introduced.
• Knowledge of Spanish companies with interests in Latin America. Investment.
• Effect of the performance of Spanish companies investing in Latin America has on the image of Spain.
• Equal performance of Spanish companies in Spain and Latin America.
• The Spanish Government should encourage greater involvement of Spanish companies abroad.
• Opinion on the action of Spanish companies in Latin America Larina in environmental and social matters
• Effect of the performance of Spanish companies investing in Latin America has on relations between Spain and these countries.
• Opinion on who benefits from the presence of Spanish companies in Latin America.
• Ideological self-location scale (1-10).
• Electoral participation in the 2008 general elections.
• Religious practice.

These are research indicators of comparative empirical investigation of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) and the BRICS that were compiled from the criteria and factors of the World Bank. This dataset consists of data for CEECs and the BRICS for the period of 2000 to 2016. The World Bank Research Indicators consist of (1) GNI, Atlas Method (Current US$); (2) GNI per capita, Atlas; (3) GNI PPP (Current International $); (4) GNI per capita, PPP (Current International $); (5) Energy Use (kg of Oil Equivalent per capita); (6) Electric Power Consumption (kWh per capita); (7) GDP (Current US$); (8) GDP Growth (Annual %); (9) Inflation, GDP Deflator (Annual %); (10) Agriculture, Value Added (% of GDP); (11) Industry, Value Added (% of GDP); (12) Service, etc., Value Added (% of GDP); (13) Exports of Goods and Services (% of GDP); (14) Imports of Goods and Services (% of GDP); (15) Gross Capital Formation (% of GDP); (16) Revenue, excluding Grants (% of GDP); (17) Time Required to Start a Business (Days); (18) Domestic Credit Provided by Financial Sector (% of GDP); (19) Tax Revenue (% of GDP); (20) High-Technology Exports (% of Manufactured Exports); (21) Merchandise Trade (% of GDP); (22) Net Barter Terms of Trade Index (2000 = 100); (23) External Debt Stock, Total (DOD, Current US$); (24) Total Debt Service (% of Exports of Goods, Services and Primary Income); (25) Personal Remittances, Received (Current US$); (26) Foreign Direct Investment, Net Flows (BoP, Current US$); and (27) Net Official Development Assistance and Official Aid Received (Current US$). Furthermore, statistical data of CEECs and the BRICS were retrieved from Atlas 2.1 – Growth Lab at the Center for International Development at Harvard University; UN Comtrade Maps; WITS – UNSD Comtrade and ITC.

Goal 17Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable DevelopmentTarget 17.1: Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collectionIndicator 17.1.1: Total government revenue as a proportion of GDP, by sourceGR_G14_GDP: Total government revenue (budgetary central government) as a proportion of GDP (%)GR_G14_XDC: Total government revenue, in local currencyIndicator 17.1.2: Proportion of domestic budget funded by domestic taxesGC_GOB_TAXD: Proportion of domestic budget funded by domestic taxes (% of GDP)Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance (ODA/GNI) to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countriesIndicator 17.2.1: Net official development assistance, total and to least developed countries, as a proportion of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee donors’ gross national income (GNI)DC_ODA_SIDSG: Net official development assistance (ODA) to small island states (SIDS) as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI, by donor countries (%)DC_ODA_LDCG: Net official development assistance (ODA) to LDCs as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI, by donor countries (%)DC_ODA_LLDC: Net official development assistance (ODA) to landlocked developing countries from OECD-DAC countries, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_SIDS: Net official development assistance (ODA) to small island states (SIDS) from OECD-DAC countries, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_LDCS: Net official development assistance (ODA) to LDCs from OECD-DAC countries, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_LLDCG: Net official development assistance (ODA) to landlocked developing countries as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI, by donor countries (%)DC_ODA_TOTG: Net official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI, by donor countries (%)DC_ODA_TOTL: Net official development assistance (ODA) from OECD-DAC countries, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_TOTLGE: Official development assistance (ODA) from OECD-DAC countries on grant equivalent basis, by donor countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)DC_ODA_TOTGGE: Official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of OECD-DAC donors' GNI on grant equivalent basis, by donor countries (%)Target 17.3: Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sourcesIndicator 17.3.1: Foreign direct investment, official development assistance and South-South cooperation as a proportion of gross national incomeGF_FRN_FDI: Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows (millions of US dollars)Indicator 17.3.2: Volume of remittances (in United States dollars) as a proportion of total GDPBX_TRF_PWKR: Volume of remittances (in United States dollars) as a proportion of total GDP (%)Target 17.4: Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distressIndicator 17.4.1: Debt service as a proportion of exports of goods and servicesDT_TDS_DECT: Debt service as a proportion of exports of goods and services (%)Target 17.5: Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countriesIndicator 17.5.1: Number of countries that adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for developing countries, including the least developed countriesSG_CPA_SIGN_BIT: Number of countries with a signed bilateral investment treaty (BIT) (Number)SG_CPA_INFORCE_BIT: Number of countries with an inforce bilateral investment treaty (BIT) (Number)Target 17.6: Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge-sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanismIndicator 17.6.1: Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed5IT_NET_BBNDN: Number of fixed Internet broadband subscriptions, by speed (number)IT_NET_BBND: Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed (per 100 inhabitants)Target 17.7: Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreedIndicator 17.7.1: Total amount of funding for developing countries to promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologiesTarget 17.8: Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technologyIndicator 17.8.1: Proportion of individuals using the InternetIT_USE_ii99: Internet users per 100 inhabitantsTarget 17.9: Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperationIndicator 17.9.1: Dollar value of financial and technical assistance (including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation) committed to developing countriesDC_FTA_TOTAL: Total official development assistance (gross disbursement) for technical cooperation (millions of 2018 United States dollars)Target 17.10: Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development AgendaIndicator 17.10.1: Worldwide weighted tariff-averageTM_TAX_WMFN: Worldwide weighted tariff-average, most-favoured-nation status, by type of product (%)TM_TAX_WMPS: Worldwide weighted tariff-average, preferential status, by type of product (%)Target 17.11: Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020Indicator 17.11.1: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global exportsTX_IMP_GBMRCH: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global merchandise imports (%)TX_EXP_GBMRCH: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global merchandise exports (%)TX_EXP_GBSVR: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global services exports (%)TX_IMP_GBSVR: Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global services imports (%)Target 17.12: Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market accessIndicator 17.12.1: Weighted average tariffs faced by developing countries, least developed countries and small island developing StatesTM_TAX_DMFN: Average tariff applied by developed countries, most-favored nation status, by type of product (%)TM_TAX_DPRF: Average tariff applied by developed countries, preferential status, by type of product (%)Target 17.13: Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherenceIndicator 17.13.1: Macroeconomic DashboardTarget 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable developmentIndicator 17.14.1: Number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence of sustainable developmentSG_CPA_SDEVP: Mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development (%)Target 17.15: Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable developmentIndicator 17.15.1: Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperationSG_PLN_PRVRIMON: Proportion of results indicators which will be monitored using government sources and monitoring systems - data by provider (%)SG_PLN_RECRIMON: Proportion of results indicators which will be monitored using government sources and monitoring systems - data by recipient (%)SG_PLN_PRVNDI: Proportion of project objectives of new development interventions drawn from country-led result frameworks - data by provider (%)SG_PLN_RECNDI: Proportion of project objectives in new development interventions drawn from country-led result frameworks - data by recipient (%)SG_PLN_PRVRICTRY: Proportion of results indicators drawn from country-led results frameworks - data by provider (%)SG_PLN_RECRICTRY: Proportion of results indicators drawn from country-led results frameworks - data by recipient (%)SG_PLN_REPOLRES: Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation - data by recipient (%) SG_PLN_PRPOLRES: Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of

— Assessment of Spain’s economic situation, current and forward-looking to one year. — Evaluation of the political situation in Spain, current and forward-looking to one year. — Most important problems in Spain. Problems that, personally, affect you the most. — Influence of international events. — Interest in news related to international events. — Comparison of interest between international issues and national policy. — Knowledge about globalisation. Prospective assessment of the effects of globalisation (10 years). — Knowledge of aid measures to least developed countries (forgive external debt or dedicate 0.7 % of GDP to least developed countries). — Countries’ reasons for cooperation with the least developed. — Opinion on Spain’s cooperation in the development of other peoples. — Important aspects in development cooperation: human rights, health, indigenous peoples, poverty,... — Assessment of the role of cooperation in reducing underdevelopment. Reasons for cooperation to reduce little or no underdevelopment. — Countries to which Spanish development cooperation should be directed and directed. — Evaluation of Spain’s resources for international development cooperation. — Principal subject managing development aid funds. — Bodies or institutions that should have greater responsibility for development aid. — Assessment of work and cooperation and development assistance of: religious organisations, businesses, human rights organisations, social intervention organisations and DNGOs. And its effectiveness. — Form of participation in the development cooperation of the interviewee: financial contribution, volunteering, punctual activity,... — The interviewee’s ideological scale. — Memory of voting in general elections of March 2004. Religious practice.

The European Recovery Program, more commonly known as the Marshall Plan, was a U.S. initiative to promote Europe's economic recovery in the aftermath of the Second World War. Between 1948 and 1952, the U.S. distributed approximately 13.3 billion U.S. dollars between the non-communist states of Western Europe, including Greece and Turkey. Notable exceptions from this aid were Spain, due to Franco's unpopularity in the U.S. (although this changed with the Pact of Madrid in 1953), and Finland, who opted out as they did not want to strain relations with the Soviet Union. While money was roughly split between nations based on population size, larger, industrialized countries received a disproportionately higher share of the aid as it was believed their success would trickle down to smaller states. Economic insignificance? The term "Marshall Plan" has become something of a synonym for economic recovery plans in recent decades, yet the modern consensus is that the economic impact of the original was fairly overstated at the time. This investment of capital did help, but European recovery was well underway before the first installments were paid by the U.S, and it was European integration which laid the groundwork for recovery. Unlike the period following the First World War, the victorious powers had learned that cooperation between former adversaries, rather than punishment and reparations, would be the key to future success. It was the ideological influence of the Marshall Plan had the largest impact; Western European business structures became more Americanized, international trade barriers and tariffs were removed, and the transition to more capitalist economies eventually led to the most prosperous period ever recorded in European history, known as the "Golden Age" (1950-1973). The Molotov Plan The initial proposal, made by George C. Marshall, actually invited the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc states to take part in the offer, although this was a token gesture that U.S. knew would never be accepted. The Marshall Plan was announced in June 1947, just a few months after the Truman Doctrine; this was where the U.S. pledged to contain communist expansion across the globe, and is often regarded as the beginning of the Cold War. Not only did the Soviet Union reject the U.S. proposal, but Moscow also forbade any other Eastern Bloc country from taking part; instead the Soviets launched the Molotov Plan, which consolidated their economic power in the Eastern Bloc. While this plan initially rewarded Poland and Czechoslovakia for rejecting Americanization, the heavy reparations placed on the Axis powers meant that it was of little benefit to the likes of East Germany, Hungary, or Romania. Nonetheless, as the Marshall Plan changed the economic direction of Western Europe throughout the Cold War, the Molotov Plan helped shape communist economic development in the East. Eventually both plans developed into much larger endeavors, as the Mutual Security Act of 1951 saw American economic influence stretch beyond Europe, and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) did the same for the Soviet Union.