Private philanthropy contributed an estimated $69bn to low- and middle-income countries during the period studied, compared to roughly $770bn in official development assistance (ODA), according to the Centre on Philanthropy at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Published in March, the third edition of the OECD report highlights that private giving accounts for nearly one dollar for every 11 in ODA funds. Priscilla Boiardi, a policy analyst in the OECD’s Private Finance for Sustainable Development Unit, notes that reading this headline figure requires significant nuance regarding data collection gaps, in-donor expenses, and regional variations.
Understanding the Scale and Blind Spots of Philanthropic Giving
When comparing the $770bn in official aid to the $69bn in private philanthropy, the figures reveal that ODA outweighs private contributions by roughly ten to one, according to Priscilla Boiardi. However, Boiardi points out that a substantial portion of recent ODA totals has been directed toward in-donor refugee costs and support linked to the war in Ukraine, representing funds that effectively never leave the donor country. Once those domestic expenditures are discounted, the real financial gap appears different.
Furthermore, the OECD data covers more than 500 foundations operating both domestically and across borders, but significant gaps remain. Boiardi explains that the dataset misses most giving in Indonesia, the Middle East, and Thailand, while likely undercounting philanthropic flows across Asia generally. While the report features solid numbers for India and China, the missing regions suggest that the overall philanthropic pie is larger than the reported $69bn indicates.
Sectoral Disparities: The Climate Funding Gap
Health and education traditionally dominate philanthropic funding, but the latest report highlights a striking shortfall in climate financing. According to Boiardi, private philanthropy allocates approximately $7bn toward climate initiatives, whereas official development assistance spends roughly twenty times that amount on the sector. Boiardi calls that level of private funding insufficient, full stop.
This disparity is compounded by structural and statistical blind spots. A significant amount of climate adaptation work happens at the local level through domestic philanthropies that fall outside current international data collection efforts. According to Boiardi, bridging this gap would allow researchers to connect local grassroots work with international aid efforts rather than treating them as separate tracks.
Did You Know? The OECD report covers more than 500 foundations that give either across borders or domestically, but analysts note it still misses the majority of giving in regions like Indonesia, Thailand, and the Middle East.
Infrastructure Deficits in Middle-Income Countries
The expansion of domestic philanthropy in middle-income countries remains uneven due to measurement challenges and structural limitations. Speaking in New Delhi, India, at AVPN’s Global Conference 2026, Boiardi emphasized that Asia suffers not from a shortage of capital or generosity, but from a shortage of the institutional infrastructure needed to channel that generosity effectively. Without strong organizations connecting civil society, philanthropy, and government, growth in structured giving tends to stall.
Regulatory frameworks also heavily influence what data gets captured. India’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) law, which mandates that companies direct roughly two percent of profits to charity, forced disclosure and brought previously invisible giving into public view. Mexico utilizes a similar public authority to collect data, demonstrating how regulatory requirements improve transparency even when systems remain imperfect.
Expert Insight: As European governments shift budgets toward defense and domestic priorities, experts warn that relying on private philanthropy to offset declining official aid misinterprets how foundations operate strategically. True collaboration requires building robust local infrastructure rather than expecting private donors to simply fill state funding holes.
Bridging Public and Philanthropic Efforts
The Centre on Philanthropy supplies foundational data as a global public good, while netFWD—the Network of Foundations Working for Development—uses that data to connect foundations, development banks, and governments. Boiardi notes that these numbers allow netFWD to engage directly with multilateral banks and development finance institutions. This data-backed approach recently led the French government to name netFWD the secretariat of F7, marking the first engagement group built specifically for philanthropy at that level.
As policymakers increasingly seek to co-create solutions rather than dictate terms, new vehicles blending public and philanthropic capital are emerging. Through the F7 framework, a community of practice is forming around catalytic capital, bringing foundations, development finance institutions, and multilateral banks into unified conversations about global development.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the financial gap between official development assistance and private philanthropy?
Private philanthropy sent an estimated $69bn to low- and middle-income countries during the studied period, compared to roughly $770bn in official development assistance (ODA), representing a ratio of nearly one dollar of private philanthropy for every 11 in ODA.
Which regions are most underrepresented in the OECD philanthropy data?
According to Priscilla Boiardi, the dataset undercounts Asia generally, missing most philanthropic giving in Indonesia, Thailand, and the Middle East, while maintaining solid records for India and China.
How does regulatory policy affect philanthropic data collection?
Where governments mandate reporting—such as India’s CSR law requiring corporations to direct roughly 2% of profits to charity, or Mexico’s public authority data collection—previously invisible giving is pulled into public view and measurable statistics.
How might closer coordination between international foundations and domestic philanthropies alter the distribution of global aid funds?