In order is Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, German, Netherlands, UK, Canada, Belgium, France, US, Japan, Australia, with Norway so far ahead they have a different font color.
In order is Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, German, Netherlands, UK, Canada, Belgium, France, US, Japan, Australia, with Norway so far ahead they have a different font color.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say extremely misleading. The graph there does show foreign aid per capita after all with a selection of western countries.
The title of this post is wrong and should either focus more on Luxembourg/Norway or say that US is behind some other country in foreign aid per capita.
It isn’t titled “foreign aid per capita among western countries” though. The fact that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also in the top 20 paints a very different picture of what placing highly on the list actually means.
Furthermore, it doesn’t say “among western countries with greater than 8.5m population except for Norway which is much smaller”. The caption says “among countries with large populations”, where a large population is defined as greater than 8.5 million. That’s extremely misleading and arbitrary. And then Austria and Saudi Arabia are omitted anyway, despite fitting all the above criteria.
So yeah, I would definitely go so far, and in fact I considered going further and calling it outright misinformation.
I’m with you that the title and ranking of US as #10 is wrong. The graph is still just a graph of a select few countries with a large population as an illustration.
The way OP presented it is misleading as if those are the top ranking countries and that this is the entirety of their development aid. The article is specifically for aid provided by the state for DAC/OECD members which excludes private aid where it doesn’t contain ranking and only contains a short list of countries.
The post is misleading, the Wikipedia isn’t.
Austria, Ireland, Denmark, and Finland are all DAC members and aren’t included in the graph. The graph is unequivocally misleading, which is my original point.
The article itself does have a more comprehensive table, but it uses outdated figures from several years ago. The title of the article is “List of development aid sovereign state donors” and yet it excludes major ODA donors such as Saudi Arabia, not only from the DAC list but also from the second list.
I don’t understand why people keep defending this when I outlined like 10 separate errors already. Are you even reading my comments or am I responding to bots?
Thanks for the passionate criticism, it’s needed.
Thanks. At first, I just happened to notice that the graph didn’t match up with the table below. And then when I pulled up the source I realized there were many more errors.
And it’s terribly important to share this type of stuff. Most people doomscrolling want the short adrenaline hit which corresponds with preexisting beliefs.
And that’s cool.
But for me it’s important that people don’t take things at face value and actually look at sources.
So I figured I’d not only important to upvote, but also personally thank people for doing that stuff, as I saw what happened to Reddit and people got flushed away with underbelly driven doom peddlers.
So thanks again!
“I didn’t read past the title, therefore misinformation”
The irony 🫠