Analysis

Financing International Development: The Decisive Role of G7 Countries in a Context of Disengagement

Published on 02/06/2026.

Special feature: French G7 Presidency

Explore our special report to understand the issues related to the French G7 Presidency in 2026, gain insight into the key policy priorities, and follow the latest updates.

Access the special report ➔

In 2026, France’s G7 Presidency aims to bring development financing back to the forefront of the international agenda. In a context marked by an unprecedented and sharp decline in official development assistance, this analysis based on OECD data examines the weight of G7 countries in global ODA, the evolution of their commitments, and the sectoral priorities shaping their financing.

G7 Countries : leading contributors to official development assistance

In 2025, total Official Development Assistance (ODA) from members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) amounted to USD 174,3 billion, a 23% decrease compared with 2024. This decline marks a historic turning point after several years of growth and is expected to intensify in 2025, with a projected fall of 6%, equivalent to nearly USD 40 billion. This sharp contraction comes amid shrinking fiscal space and the prioritisation of domestic expenditure in several donor countries, and is in some cases driven by ideological considerations. As a result, 26 of the 33 members of the OECD DAC reduced their development finance effort in 2024.

Despite this broad-based decline, the seven G7 countries remain dominant actors, accounting for two thirds of global ODA in 2025 (69%). This significant weight confers on the G7 a particular responsibility in shaping international solidarity policies, both in terms of funding volumes and the sectoral priorities it drives.

As a result of the United States’ historic withdrawal from development assistance in 2025, Germany became the largest donor country, with its Official Development Assistance (ODA) reaching USD 29.1 billion. The United States ranked second (USD 29.0 billion), followed by the United Kingdom (USD 17.2 billion) and Japan (USD 16.2 billion). France ranked fifth with USD 14.5 billion, while Italy (USD 7.3 billion) and Canada (USD 7.2 billion) recorded more modest aid volumes.

Analysis of each country’s international solidarity effort as a share of national income (ODA/GNI ratio) confirms a marked slowdown. While they are expected to meet the UN target of 0.7%, none of the G7 members currently achieves it. Germany remains the closest, at 0.56%, despite a significant decline from its 2022 peak (0.85%). The United Kingdom (0.43%) and France (0.42%) confirm their gradual disengagement, while the United States, despite being the largest donor in absolute terms, rank last among the group, with only 0.09% of GNI devoted to ODA.

From the 2000s acceleration to the 2024 decline : the trajectory of G7 ODA

The evolution of G7 members’ Official Development Assistance since 1976 shows an overall upward trend, with a particularly marked acceleration from the 2000s onwards, which came to an abrupt halt in 2024. Combined G7 ODA stood at around USD 60 billion in the early 2000s, rising to nearly USD 178 billion in 2023 (in real terms), before declining in 2024 and falling even further in 2025. These dynamics reflect both renewed political commitments, notably around the Millennium Development Goals in 2000 and the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, and ad hoc responses to major humanitarian and geopolitical crises.

These commitments are now facing a sharp and historic reversal. Cuts implemented across all G7 countries (with the exception of Japan) could bring ODA levels back more than a decade. The near halving of United States ODA in 2025 represented a major shock to international development financing. In France, reductions introduced since 2023 have brought its contribution back to 2017 levels, effectively erasing a decade of progress. Germany, despite being historically among the few countries to meet the 0.7% target, has fallen below it, while the United Kingdom plans to reduce its effort to 0.3% by 2027, its lowest level since 1999.

This significant contraction in resources will have tangible consequences, particularly in key sectors of international cooperation.

Divergent sectoral priorities among countries

The analysis of the sectoral distribution of bilateral ODA among G7 members reveals different allocation choices across countries. Social infrastructure and services constitute the main sector for most members, notably France, Germany and Japan. Humanitarian aid represents a significant share for the United States (prior to the closure of USAID in early 2025) and the United Kingdom. Support to governments and civil society, as well as economic infrastructure, complete the picture, with varying weightings across countries.

G7 countries account for more than half of DAC bilateral commitments in key sectors such as education, population policies, reproductive health, and food assistance. By contrast, they represent a smaller share in sectors such as communications and manufacturing industries, which are more strongly supported by other donors.

Beyond sectoral priorities, it is also important to consider cross-cutting issues such as gender equality and climate change.

Gender equality : an affirmed priority, but diverging trajectories

Analysis: The G7 and Gender Equality

Explore our analysis to understand the place of gender equality on the G7 agenda: a policy priority that is regularly reaffirmed, but where concrete commitments and funding remain uneven over time.

Read the analysis ➔

Donor countries’ financial commitment to gender equality is captured through the OECD DAC “gender marker”. This indicator measures the share of each donor’s bilateral ODA allocated to projects for which gender equality is either a “principal” or “significant” objective. Since 2010, data show an upward trend among G7 members (see our dedicated article), although they remain below the average of all DAC countries due to the limited engagement of the United States.

The OECD measures the integration of gender equality into bilateral ODA through the gender marker of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Each activity is classified according to whether the promotion of gender equality is its principal objective, a secondary but significant objective, or whether gender equality is not targeted.

This indicator therefore makes it possible to identify funding that incorporates a gender perspective, but it does not measure impact: it reflects the extent to which gender equality is integrated into project design.

OECD source: understanding the DAC gender marker .

Canada and the United Kingdom stand out for their consideration of gender equality issues, despite a significant decline for Canada since 2022. Italy and Germany hover around the OECD average, with Germany showing an upward trend since 2020. France and Japan, after a decade of very limited engagement with gender equality, have increased their allocations in order to reach the DAC average. Finally, the United States stands out for its very limited consideration of this issue, even prior to the 2025 decision by the new administration to reinstate and expand the Global Gag Rule.

climate action : a shared priority, with marked disparities

The action taken by donor countries to address climate change is measured using the OECD DAC “Rio Markers”. These indicate that over the 2020–2024 period, a significant share of G7 countries’ bilateral ODA supported climate-related actions, although with substantial disparities between countries and depending on the objectives financed.

The OECD measures donor countries’ contributions to the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change using two “Rio markers”. Bilateral ODA is assessed according to whether it contributes to mitigation of climate change and/or adaptation to its impacts. Each activity can be scored as a principal or significant objective depending on the role of the climate objective within the project.

These markers make it possible to identify whether funding contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening resilience to climate impacts, or both. However, they do not represent an exclusive budget breakdown: the same amount can be counted under both adaptation and mitigation.

OECD source: understanding the Rio markers and DAC climate statistics .

Between 2020 and 2024, G7 countries allocated around one third of their Bilateral ODA to climate change adaptation or mitigation

Behind this average, disparities between countries remain significant. The United States, despite having by far the largest total ODA volume in the group, allocates only a very small share to climate-related projects. Excluding the United States, the G7 average stands at around 50%. France, Germany and Japan are the leading G7 providers of climate finance. In particular, Germany and Japan are especially engaged in mitigation, while France stands out for its high level of support across both dimensions.

The G7 and the challenge of rethinking aid in a period of fiscal constraint

These data illustrate that ODA can not be reduced to financing volumes alone. Sectoral choices, implementation modalities, and the integration of cross-cutting dimensions such as gender equality are equally decisive for the effectiveness and coherence of international aid. Yet it is precisely at a time when these trade-offs are becoming most critical that donors’ fiscal space is contracting most sharply. The projected historic decline in ODA in the coming years calls for a thorough reassessment of priorities and strengthened coordination among G7 members: in a context of increasingly scarce resources, fragmented efforts and incoherent sectoral choices will carry a directly measurable human cost.

At a time when the French G7 Presidency is bringing these issues back to the centre of international discussions, the challenge goes far beyond stemming the decline in aid volumes. It requires a fundamental rethinking of the architecture of development and climate finance, its channels, conditionalities, leverage effects on private finance and domestic resources, as well as its funding sources in order to preserve its ambition. The ability of G7 members to translate their commitments into measurable operational priorities will constitute the true test of this Presidency’s credibility.