The pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the Iran War. All of these are crises that Africa didn’t create, but got hit hard by nonetheless. Countries already struggling with high levels of poverty and debt have had their problems compounded and their belts tightened.

Then along came sudden, sizable cuts to aid, which had provided a (sometimes literal) lifeline.

The cuts have jeopardised millions of lives and billions of livelihoods.

New analysis by The ONE Campaign quantifies the size of G7 countries’ aid cuts to Africa and what they could mean for a continent already struggling on multiple fronts.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. G7 per capita aid to Africa fell by nearly one-quarter between 2021 to 2024. It dropped from $37.8 per person in 2021 to $28.6 per person in 2024 (in constant 2024 dollars). That means that G7 aid to Africa was $9.15 lower per African person in 2024 than it was just three years earlier. That figure takes into account Africa’s 2.5% yearly population growth over that period.

Why it matters: G7 leaders are asking African countries to manage more frequent global shocks, protect their populations from imported inflation, invest in resilience, and stay on track toward long-term development goals, with less support. Aid is not the only answer to Africa’s financing challenges. But for many low-income and crisis-affected countries, concessional finance remains one of the few sources of funding that can support basic services, humanitarian needs, and long-term investment without adding to debt stress. That makes the decline in G7 aid per person especially worrying.

2. Every G7 donor has cut per capita aid to Africa since 2021. The decline is not driven by one donor alone. Across the G7, most major donors provided less aid to Africa in 2024 than they did in 2021. Only Japan provided more aid over that period. But factoring in population growth, even Japan’s per capita aid to Africa fell.

But wait, there’s more (or rather, less): Not only is aid to Africa in decline, but the share of total aid spent in African countries is at its lowest levels in two decades. That means Africa is receiving a smaller share of the pie, as aid gets spent in other places, particularly with the rise of refugee costs in donor countries.

3. Aid to Africa looks likely to continue to fall. Preliminary data from the OECD points to a further drop in aid. Bilateral aid to Africa fell by nearly 24% in 2025, the second consecutive year of decline and the steepest on record. France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US accounted for over 95% of the decline. The OECD projects a further 5.8% decline in aid in 2026, a projection that doesn’t account for the impacts of the conflict in the Middle East.

Why it matters: Donors are increasingly trying to do more with less, stretching aid budgets across refugee costs, support to Ukraine, climate finance, private sector instruments, and geopolitical priorities. Those pressures are real. But when the aid pot does not grow, trade-offs become unavoidable. Too often, Africa loses.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Ambassador Mark Green, President and CEO of ONE, on the need for countries to mobilise domestic resources to achieve self-reliance.

• Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli and David McNair on how the Strait of Hormuz shock is a wakeup call for African countries to reduce structural dependence.

• Rodney Kazibwe on the disparity between China’s and the US’s trade with Africa.

…

COOL TOOLS:

• Jorge Rivera built an open-source Python package that quickly turns messy country, city, and organisation names into clean, standard codes and IDs.

…

IN THE QUEUE:

• Why Africa keeps getting the wrong kind of crisis.

• “Cooling poverty” affects billions as heat risks rise.

• The arithmetic of destruction: How conflict compounds human capital loss.

…

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

There’s a longstanding debate in the scholarly literature on whether international aid reduces or increases conflict, with studies landing on both sides. As any social scientist will be quick to tell you, studying humans and their actions is messy, inherently difficult, and annoyingly resistant to black-and-white answers.

But to oversimplify, the studies fall into one of two camps:

1. Aid reduces conflict: Aid raises the opportunity costs of fighting, improves people’s lives, reduces people’s grievances, and strengthens governance.

2. Aid increases conflict: Aid incentivises armed groups to loot or tax resources, sabotage projects that threaten their control, compete over aid, or target communities seen as cooperating with the state.

In reality, both camps are right, some of the time. A lot depends on circumstances. Aid supplied in fragile contexts—especially ones in which conflict already exists—tends to be at greater risk of contributing to conflict. But how aid is delivered—and not aid itself—is the key variable. Aid that is poorly targeted or badly managed can worsen violence, while well-designed aid programs can reduce it.

But what happens when aid suddenly stops? A new study tries to answer that question, looking at the impact of the US’s devastating aid cuts in 2025.

The findings are sobering and important, as we detail below.

— Joe Kraus, recovering social scientist and Senior Director at ONE Data

Subscribe now

2 key things to know

1. Regions with higher exposure to US aid cuts experienced higher conflict rates. The study, published in Science, found that the withdrawal of USAID in early 2025 resulted in a 6.5% greater probability of conflict, a 10% greater probability of protests and riots, and a 9.3% increase in the number of battle-related fatalities in regions at the 75th percentile of exposure to US aid. Those effects appeared immediately and persisted for months. The study’s findings validate a previous study that concluded that aid shocks (defined as an aid reduction of at least 24%) more than doubled the risk of violent conflict, from 2.1% to 5%.

The study’s authors theorise that the effects of the US aid cuts occurred because the economic opportunity costs of violence dropped more rapidly than the aid over which groups were competing (in part because aid included capital and infrastructure that didn’t immediately go away). The impacts on individuals, including beneficiaries and staff, was sudden, unexpected, and in many cases life altering. And as the study reveals, the aid cuts increased the likelihood of unrest and violence. Interestingly if unsurprisingly, the study found that the impacts of the aid cuts were mitigated in countries with stronger, more inclusive political institutions.

Why it matters: Aid is up to 40 times more volatile than government revenue. Aid revenues are the most significant source of external fluctuations after commodity prices. They account for 25% of all external shocks, ahead of natural disasters, humanitarian crises, changes in GDP, and fluctuations in international interest rates. And while the study’s authors caution that their findings cannot necessarily be applied to the more gradual (and less severe, in terms of absolute amounts) aid cuts by the likes of France, Germany, the UK and other donors countries, they present a cautionary tale about a previously underappreciated aspect of aid cuts.

2. It’s far cheaper to prevent conflict than resolve it. ONE Data’s analysis found that every $1 spent on activities that spur economic growth and political stability can avert spending of up to $103 on a future conflict. That means that preventing conflict is 100 times cheaper than responding to it.

Yet the top 10 OECD defense spenders allocate $7 to defense for every $1 spent on development and diplomacy, combined. Overall, more than 85% of their security-relevant spending is devoted to defense. That leaves less than 15% for the tools that help reduce fragility, manage shocks, and sustain political stability. Those 10 countries spent a combined $1.45 trillion on their militaries in 2024, up nearly 30% over the previous decade.

Why it matters: The US and other donor countries have labelled their aid cuts as cost-saving measures. The reality is that those cuts are actually costing them money in the long run due to higher security costs, weakened soft power, and lost jobs. International aid is deeply intertwined with donor countries’ agricultural markets, and helps provide buffers against biological and terror threats. TL;DR: Aid done effectively isn’t just about doing good. It’s a smart investment that yields economic and security returns both abroad and at home.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• ONE Data provided support for a new modelling study submitted to the Lancet Medical Journal by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health that estimates that recent and projected aid cuts by 11 European donors could be associated with over 12 million avoidable deaths by 2030.

• ONE Data partnered with the Future of Development Cooperation Coalition to produce The Development Balance Sheet.

• ONE Data presented on the effective use of open data alongside Google at the Global Data Festival in Nairobi this week.

IN THE QUEUE:

• As fertiliser shortage bites, Africa must look to its own soil.

• Africa must define Africa’s response to Ebola.

• Development finance faces a trillion-dollar traffic jam.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

That’s what James Mwangi, a Kenyan climate investor, thinks Africa can do to boost its farm yields while decreasing its exposure to high fertiliser costs. With shocks from geopolitical events like the Iran war and climate change impacting farmers, James says now is the time for Africa to invest in a better future.

Watch the full interview with James above to learn why he’s so optimistic.

Ghana’s recent debt history follows a striking arc. The country went from heavily indebted in the early 2000s to a darling of the international bond market in the 2010s, only to default on its debt in 2022. Its prospects look better today, but its situation remains tenuous, especially given recent geopolitical volatility and global economic uncertainty.

In terms of debt, Ghana may be the canary in the coal mine. Thirty-two countries are in or at high risk of debt distress. Low- and middle-income countries hold $3.6 trillion in debt and will pay an estimated $457 billion this year to service that debt, and nearly as much in each of the next two years. G77 countries are spending over one-third of government revenues on debt payments, on average; in 36 countries, it’s more than half.

So looking at Ghana’s wild ride is instructive, both for what it means for Ghana’s 35 million people and for what it may portend for other countries.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

A tale of debt, in 3 acts

Act 1. Success!. Ghana became the first graduate of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative to issue a sovereign Eurobond in 2007. That $750 million debut, priced at 8.5%, was widely seen as a sign that Africa’s debt-relief era had given way to a new era of market-based finance. Over the subsequent 14 years, Ghana took advantage of relatively low interest rates. It went to international capital markets nine times, issuing $15.6 billion in Eurobonds.

Ghana’s debt has surged

But that success was, in part, premised on the effective management of the country’s newly exploited oil wealth. When the price of oil plummeted in 2015, Ghana’s economy—and investor confidence—suffered. An IMF program helped stabilise both, and the country’s outlook brightened.

Act 2. Mess. Following COVID-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, interest rates surged to levels not seen in decades. That made borrowing more expensive. The average cost of borrowing for African countries rose 91% between 2020 and 2024, according to analysis by ONE Data.

Ghana did not escape unscathed. Its borrowing had accelerated right before the global shocks hit; 70% of its borrowing occurred between 2018 and 2021. With interest rates climbing, Ghana’s high debt became unsustainably expensive. In December 2022, it defaulted on roughly $21 billion in debt obligations—including $13 billion in Eurobonds—and joined the Common Framework the following month to restructure its debt. A few months later, the IMF approved a 3-year, $3 billion loan. Ghana, the rising star of the 2010s, had fallen in dramatic fashion.

Act 3. A brighter future...? Since emerging from default in October 2024, Ghana has experienced a recovery. Inflation fell from 54% in 2022 to 3.4% in April 2026. Public debt as a share of GDP dropped from 90% in 2022 to 45%. The three big credit rating agencies upgraded Ghana’s credit rating. And the country is running a fiscal surplus.

But the recovery is fragile. Looming on the horizon are several years of high debt service payments; they’ll hit just as IMF support ends, removing a critical safety net. Multilateral lending is down, jeopardising next year’s replenishment of the World Bank’s concessional lending arm, the International Development Association. That could impact the availability of cheap financing for Ghana and other lower-middle-income countries whose economic standing is fragile but whose concessional financing needs aren’t considered as critical as those of low-income countries.

Ghana’s debt service

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Jorge Rivera and David McNair spoke about the future of data for development at the OECD.

• David McNair summarised the outcomes of the Africa Forward Summit.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Uganda’s pro-refugee policy is under strain.

• African healthcare needs better branding.

• The crisis in Sudan is much worse than what is acknowledged.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Something I’ve been wondering a lot about recently is what oil company CEOs really think about the Iran war. Sure, their companies are making massive windfall profits. Maybe big bonuses await them at the end of the year. But surely they realise the long-term risk these short-term gains pose for their companies as countries and consumers around the world, tired and financially taxed by the world’s dependence on fossil fuels, race to embrace clean energy.

As Simon Stiell, UNFCCC chief succinctly put it: “Those who’ve fought to keep the world hooked on fossil fuels are inadvertently supercharging the global renewables boom.”

So below we look at the clean energy boom, what developing countries are doing to seize it, and what could prevent them from succeeding.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. A clean energy boom was underway before the Iran war. The share of global energy investments in clean energy steadily increased between 2015 and 2025, from 45% to 65%. That predates the surge in clean energy interest catalysed by the Iran war.

Explore the interactive chart

Renewables are the world’s fastest growing source of electricity. They’ve grown five times faster than gas and 16 times faster than coal since 2014. The use of coal and gas to generate electricity has plateaued over the past five years.

The shift to clean energy is also visible in the types of cars we are driving. Electric vehicle sales have increased rapidly since 2020. EV’s are projected to account for 42% of all new cars sales by 2030.

Explore the interactive chart

2. Green bonds are booming. The Iran war has sparked a surge in the issuance of green bonds from developing countries looking to fund clean energy projects to reduce their reliance on oil. Green bond issuances jumped by 53% in the first four months of the year, to $24 billion. That’s already nearly as much as in all of 2023, a record-setting year. That includes Côte d’Ivoire’s first ever green bond—notably fully funded by African institutions—to build the country’s largest solar plant, which is expected to come online next year. Investors certainly don’t mind the surge in green bonds, which provided a 10.7% return last year and tend to be less volatile than other asset classes.

Source: Bloomberg

3. Insufficient climate finance and high debt levels could derail clean energy’s momentum. The upfront costs of clean energy infrastructure are significant, and can make it challenging for countries with stretched budgets to take the plunge. That’s where climate finance could play a critical role. But donor countries aren’t providing the levels of financing needed, though development banks like the World Bank have scaled up climate finance in recent years (a trend that pressure from the US may reverse).

That’s why countries understandably are turning to the debt market. But as Sara Harcourt, ONE’s Senior Director for Development Finance, notes, “the timing couldn’t be worse.” Interest rates across all creditors nearly doubled between 2020 and 2024, a product of the pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine. Just as they had begun to ease, the Iran war sent new shocks through the global system, putting additional pressure on already debt-saddled countries. That’s forced countries to choose between foregoing investments in clean energy or taking on additional, expensive debt to finance it. Either option carries long-term consequences.

Explore the interactive chart

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• ONE names Ambassador Mark Green as its next President and CEO.

• ONE launched its “Africa Makes the World” campaign ahead of Africa Day.

• Luca Picci created a data tool that makes it easier to access UNESCO data.

• Justin McAuley on the impossible choices facing people assaulted by violence in Sudan.

• David McNair visited an early birthplace of vaccines and came away with an appreciation for what we’ve accomplished and where we’re missing opportunities to do more.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Where’s the money for Africa’s clean energy?

• China and Europe form a carbon alliance as the US bets on fossil fuels.

• African economies are more resilient than ever.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

You’ve likely seen the headlines about the (many) successful Polymarket bets suspiciously placed just minutes before US military action in Iran and Venezuela.

If you suspected foul play, you weren’t wrong. And not just because the US announced last week the arrest of a special forces soldier who allegedly used classified information about the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to win $400,000 on Polymarket.

New analysis by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective (ACDC) provides additional evidence to validate your suspicions. Looking at bets placed over the past five years, ACDC found that long-shot Polymarket bets on military and defense actions have an average win rate of 52%.

The average win rate on all long-shot bets across Polymarket is just 14%. Bets on politics also outperform the average, with 25% of long-shots paying out.

That strongly suggests that insiders are using confidential (and sometimes classified) information to make money. That could have implications for how political and military decisions get made, and likely rewards a few “well informed” actors to the detriment of everyone else.

So below we take a closer look at prediction market bets and what they may mean for humanity.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. Big money is being bet on decisions that impact billions of people’s lives. Millions of dollars are being wagered on whether the price of oil will rise or fall. You can bet on when there will be a ceasefire in Sudan’s civil war. Or whether India will attack Pakistan or China will invade Taiwan. Or whether the US will increase interest rates. Or how long world leaders’ handshakes will last (yes, really). Or who will be the next UN Secretary-General. Or the number of tweets issued by a public figure in a day or week.

Source: Polymarket

Why it matters: Some of these seem like (and may be) harmless fun or simply foolish ways to risk one’s money. But others could have serious implications. For instance, the surge in oil prices since Israel and the US started a war with Iran has entire countries rationing oil, raised fears of recession, and spiked the price of fertilizers. Polymarket bets themselves don’t directly affect oil prices, but they create perverse incentives for people who can affect them. They may decide to use their influence to impact decisions that could be personally beneficial, even if harmful to society. Which raises concerns that…

2. Prediction markets could enable corruption. Prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi currently operate in a gray area with little regulation or transparency. That, combined with the potential to make huge profits quickly, increases the risk of abuse. It doesn’t take a criminal mind to imagine scenarios where people could use non-public information to their advantage. Like legislators or their aides betting on outcomes over which they have influence. Government officials placing surefire bets on events they are about to set in motion. Two warring factions refusing to a ceasefire because they’ve literally bet against it.

Source: Polymarket

Why it matters: The social contract is premised upon the idea that governments act in the interests of their citizens. When that doesn’t happen it erodes people’s trust in government and frays the social contract. If it persists, it can unravel the social fabric, lead to political instability, and increase the risk of violence. With people’s trust in government already low and impunity on the rise in many parts of the world, largely unregulated prediction markets risk further eroding an already troubling trust trend.

Source: 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report

3. You can literally gamble on the world’s demise. In early March, after public backlash, Polymarket pulled down markets that allowed people to bet on the possibility of nuclear war. You can place bets on the high temperatures in cities around the world, which while arguably harmless is a bit off-putting when you consider that heat waves and droughts are becoming the norm rather than the exception, with millions of people suffering through both each year.

Source: Polymarket

Why it matters: Prediction markets risk turning things like elections, geopolitics, and climate change into a kind of monetisable game or spectator sport rather than events with serious consequences. Bettors have even started pressuring people to change facts so they can win bets. What happens when elections or geopolitics start to feel transactional? What does rooting for hotter temperatures to win a bet do to one’s empathy? We are on a path to finding out.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Can nowcasting lead to better real-time estimates of aid flows? We’d welcome feedback on our ideas.

• ONE Data’s debt analysis featured in a Health Policy Watch story about African leaders declaring the end of the aid era.

• David McNair on what progressives are finally learning from the far right.

IN THE QUEUE:

• New analysis suggests something fishy is happening on Polymarket.

• AIDS creeps back in parts of Zambia, a year after US cuts to HIV assistance.

• Critical minerals demand fuels poverty and pollution in poorer countries.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

The Iran war is gifting oil companies big-time profits ($150 billion and counting). But it has sped up investments in renewables by both countries and consumers looking for more reliable and less costly energy sources.

So the world’s first international conference for transitioning away from fossil fuels, which kicks off today in Santa Marta, Colombia and runs through next Wednesday, comes at an opportune moment. “We are not going back to where we were,” Fatih Birol, chief of the International Energy Agency, said last week at the IMF & World Bank Spring meetings.

Indeed, that’s the goal of the conference’s organisers and attendees: to bring together a coalition of the willing to do things differently (read: better & faster). The conference is being billed as an implementation-focused event for those already prepared to take action. That sets a different tone than climate negotiations at COP or the UN, where fossil fuel interests have successfully slowed down progress for decades.

But dear reader, lest you get carried away by hope, here’s a friendly reminder that bureaucracy and diplomacy tend to tether even the grandest ambitions. Organisers expect the official conference outcome to “acknowledge the need for negotiation of a new international treaty to regulate fossil fuels.” Not exactly an inspiring pep rally chant, nor the outcome one might hope for given the urgency. But it’s the first step in a longer process; a second conference hosted by Tuvalu sometime in the next year will aim to secure a formal mandate to negotiate a fossil fuel treaty. So settle in.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

3 things to know

1a. Who’s attending: At least 53 countries with a combined GDP of over $40 trillion, annual oil demand of 10 billion barrels, and 30 trillion cubic feet of gas consumption. That includes Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, and the UK.

1b. Who’s not attending: Some of the world’s biggest oil and gas producers and consumers. That includes China, the US, India, and major Gulf states.

Why it matters: Even though some major players like the US and China are staying away, the conference includes several significant fossil fuel producers, including Australia, Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria. That makes it harder for skeptics to dismiss the event as a gathering with no teeth. A serious commitment by those countries to transition away from fossil fuels would be hard to ignore, and could entice others to follow suit.

2. How we got here: Any mention of a fossil fuel phaseout was stripped from the final outcome text at COP30 last November, to the frustration of the more than 80 countries that supported it. Instead, the Brazil presidency announced a non-binding fossil fuel roadmap process, to be shaped by the conference that’s taking place over the next several days and then presented at COP31 later this year. Notably, the roadmap will exist outside the formal COP process, meaning it will begin from a relatively weak position.

Subscribe now

Why it matters: 30 years of COPs have resulted in some notable—but painfully slow—progress. Fossil fuel producers (and lobbyists) have blocked needed action and will continue to do so in perpetuity. It’s clear that real ambition will only happen through coalitions of the willing that bypass the blockers and move forward outside the formal COP process. That’s likely the best chance for urgent climate action to happen at scale. And the willingness of dozens of countries to effectively go rogue at last year’s COP and start a parallel process indicates that the genie is out of the bottle, and will make COP31 fascinating to watch.

3. The world’s largest economies spend 2.5x more on fossil fuels than on renewables. Nine fossil fuel importing countries spent $314 billion subsidizing fossil fuels in 2024. That doesn’t include the United States, the world’s largest economy, which stopped reporting official figures (the US provided an estimated $14 billion in subsidies in 2022). So spare a thought for climate scientists, whose dire warnings—now proving true—continue to be downplayed or ignored by the world’s biggest polluters.

But that is changing, and fast: The Iran war is speeding up a shift already well underway. 99% of electricity demand growth in 2025 was met by solar and wind power. If you add hydropower and nuclear to the mix, carbon-free sources of power are displacing fossil fuel sources, meaning the energy transition is already underway. And China and India are investing massive sums in green hydrogen, a technology largely overlooked by the West. Fossil fuel usage remains a major concern, however, particularly in industry, jets, ships, and many automobiles. That makes this week’s conference worth paying attention to.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Devex highlights ONE Data’s analysis on the rising cost of new debt.

• William Menson on how health reform in Ghana will succeed or fail.

• David McNair on why the social good sector today looks a lot like the railway systems of the 1840s.

• Africa is being repriced. But not in the way people think.

• Justin McAuley on what it feels like to visit war-torn Sudan.

IN THE QUEUE:

• A survey suggests that G7 citizens overstate foreign aid spending by 20 times.

• A year after USAID’s death, fired workers have found few jobs and much loss.

• Transparency is the Swiss Army Knife of development.

• Why you should start a company instead of working in aid.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

There’s been a lot of discussion (including by us) about the likely effects of the Iran war on African countries, including higher interest rates and living costs. But even before the war, those countries were quietly experiencing higher borrowing costs, driving up the cost of sovereign existence. The war is likely to exacerbate those costs, but the underlying pressures on governments were already in place.

New analysis by my colleagues at ONE Data reveals a troubling pricing trend for new lending over the past five years. Higher lending costs couldn’t come at a worse time, not least of all because international aid declined by 23% in 2025, a $50 billion contraction that no country saw coming.

We’ve seen this movie before: ballooning debt and unsustainable debt payments in the Global South. The question is whether decision-makers will find ways to course correct before it’s too late.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. African borrowing costs have surged 91% amid global interest rate pressures. These countries were paying 2.7% on average across all creditors in 2020; by 2024, that had risen to 5.1%. With African debt doubling over the past decade, rising debt costs pose a threat to growth, stability, and people’s wellbeing.

Explore an interactive version

Why it matters: Debt plays an important role in supporting economic growth and funding investments in health, education, and infrastructure when domestic resources are insufficient, but it also carries risks. High debt levels and debt servicing costs can divert resources away from essential public services: 28 African countries spend more on debt than they do on health. And rising interest rates will put already at-risk countries in further jeopardy. Even before the current crisis, 21 low-income African countries were either bankrupt or at high risk of debt distress.

Explore an interactive version

2. China’s African lending rates climbed 3.2 percentage points. China’s lending rates have risen from an average of 2.5% for African countries in 2020 to 5.7% in 2024. China also happens to be Africa’s biggest bilateral lender. Its public and private lenders held over $82 billion of Africa’s external debt in 2024, though the rate of Chinese lending to Africa has slowed in recent years.

Explore an interactive version

Why it matters: Chinese lending has long been cited as an alternative to Western-dominated finance. But Chinese finance has undergone a “Great Reversal” in recent years. China went from being a net provider of finance—transferring $48 billion to low- and lower-middle-income countries (via official and private lenders) a decade ago—to a net extractor of $24 billion. Africa has experienced the most dramatic reversal in Chinese finance. It went from receiving $30 billion to paying out $22 billion, a $52 billion swing.

3. World Bank IBRD rates have risen 3.8 percentage points. World Bank lending to Africa has surged, jumping from under $40 billion in 2017 to an estimated $100 billion last year. But the price tag on that borrowing has increased as well. The cost of borrowing from the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (for IBRD countries) rose from 1.4% to 5.2% between 2020 and 2024.

Explore an interactive version

Why it matters: While IBRD lending has become more expensive, it is still far cheaper than markets. In 2024, every $100 from IBRD cost $78 in present value, a savings of $22 relative to market terms. This was narrower than in earlier years (the savings reached $52 per $100 in 2022) because IBRD rates rose along with benchmark rates. The longer maturity and grace periods of IBRD loans compared to the bond market push principal repayments far into the future, making them a more attractive (and less expensive) option. The stable low rates of the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) loans are an even better option for qualifying countries.

Explore an interactive version

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• ONE Data’s analysis on the rising cost of debt was featured in Bloomberg, Reuters, Semafor, CNBC Africa, Africa Business, and Financial Post, and referenced by senior officials at the IMF & World Bank Spring meetings.

• David McNair spoke to the World Bank about how development finance resembles a Shakespearean tragedy, and to Devex about the Spring meetings.

• Sara Harcourt details the key findings of ONE Data’s analysis on lending costs.

IN THE QUEUE:

• What happens in Sudan will not stay in Sudan.

• “We’ve won this war”: Inside the Sudanese army’s quest for legitimacy.

• Money for nothing: the role of evidence in GiveDirectly’s success.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Last year, when a family member in the US had a serious health scare, I called several Catholic churches in and around the area, looking for a priest to administer last rites. I was struck by how many of the priests serving in those rural, mostly white communities were African.

That is no fluke. While the number of priests has declined in much of the world, it’s grown by nearly 3% in Africa in recent years. That has made Africa the Catholic Church’s primary source of talent.

While Catholicism’s growth in the US and other parts of the Global North has stagnated, it has surged in parts of the Global South. No more so than in Africa, where it is growing so quickly that it’s shifting Catholicism’s epicenter and soon will play a significant role in shaping the religion’s future.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. 20% of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics are African. A century ago, it was just 1%. Catholicism has grown by more than 30% in Africa over the past decade. Africa’s Catholic population has surpassed Europe’s and now trails only Latin America. Meanwhile, Catholicism’s growth has stalled or regressed in Europe and the Americas.

The surge in Catholicism’s popularity in Africa has been building for decades. A priest in Benin in the mid-1990s recounted seeing 10,000 people show up each week for catechism (a Catholic teaching), and cohorts of over 1,000 people per day receiving Confirmation (one of the religion’s seven sacraments). Today, Africa is the world’s only region where the number of men studying for the priesthood is increasing. If current trends continue, Africa could account for half of all Catholics by the 2060s.

2. Getting political is key to the church’s success in Africa. In a continent plagued by poverty and ineffective or corrupt governments, the Catholic Church addresses people’s needs and frustrations. It provides education: one in nine students in primary school attend a Catholic school. In many countries, it helps provide healthcare. It plays mediator during conflicts, monitors elections, champions democracy, and publicly calls out human rights violations and government corruption.

Part of the religion’s success is attributable to its ability to be relevant to people’s daily lives, both spiritually and physically. Rather than forcing people to wholesale adopt its traditions, the Catholic Church in Africa has managed to incorporate the dynamism of local cultures and traditions into something uniquely African while maintaining the religion’s core elements.

3. Africa’s representation at senior levels of the church lag behind. A pope didn’t visit the African continent until 1969, 11 days after the first man walked on the moon. The church’s disengagement with Africa has since changed: For instance, Pope Leo’s first major foreign trip—which kicks off on Monday—includes stops in Algeria, Cameroon, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea. But Africa doesn’t quite yet have full equality in the church. It has the fewest Bishops per parishioner in the world. It’s also underrepresented at the Vatican, where just 12% of Cardinals under the age of 80—the ones that select the pope—are African. That’s likely to change, eventually. Increased African representation at the Vatican seems “inevitable”, and many believe the next pope will be African.

Other issues pose challenges for the Catholic Church in Africa. They include simmering tensions between the Vatican and African Catholics on issues like same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights (same-sex relations are prohibited by law in most African countries). And despite its rapid growth, African Catholicism has fierce competition: it is losing ground to Pentecostal churches, Africa’s fastest-growing Christian denomination. In addition, inter-religious intolerance has led to violence, most notably in countries along the Sahel with both sizable Muslim and Christian populations.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• The latest ODA data signals risks to future global health, prosperity, and security.

• ONE’s reaction to new figures showing the drastic cuts to UK aid in 2025.

• Our ODA dashboard makes the latest aid data easy to find and use.

• David McNair breaks down the latest aid cuts.

IN THE QUEUE:

• How Africa is changing the Catholic Church.

• How Pope Leo will approach Africa.

• America’s war is adding to Africa’s debt burden.

• How think tanks defeated democracy.

• An ingredient added to Coke, Pepsi, and M&Ms is fuelling conflict in Sudan.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Where you live shouldn’t determine whether you live. I’d wager that the vast majority of people would agree with that statement. And yet, we live in a world in which it isn’t true. Adding insult to injury, deeply rooted structural systems exacerbate and perpetuate health inequalities, with deadly consequences.

If you’re reading this newsletter, you likely already know that. So let’s dig deeper and quantify and visualise those inequalities. My colleague, Luca Picci, recently dug into the inequitable distribution of healthcare spending. His analysis—and the cool data visualisations he designed—are worth your time.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. A fraction of the world’s health spending goes to low-income countries. High-income countries account for 78% of total health spending. That enables them to fund preventive care, robust health infrastructure, and oftentimes universal coverage. They spend $3,038 per person on average on healthcare. Low-income countries, meanwhile, spend just $45 per person—67 times less.

That spending disparity hits hard: If you live in a high-income country, you stand a good chance of celebrating at least 80 birthdays. The average person living in a low-income country will experience 15 fewer birthdays. That’s roughly 5,500 fewer sunrises, sunsets, and days spent building memories with children, grandchildren, and friends.

2. People in low-income countries often pick up the healthcare tab. Out-of-pocket payments account for 43% of health spending in low-income countries, compared to around 13% in high-income ones. In 27 countries, out-of-pocket payments account for over half of all health spending. In some countries, like Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, and Cameroon, over two-thirds of health expenditure is paid out-of-pocket.

That exacerbates inequality: Out-of-pocket spending is one of the most inequitable ways to finance healthcare. Families without resources often deplete savings, sell assets, or cut spending on other essentials like food, education, and housing to cover medical bills. Others avoid treatment altogether, leaving health needs unmet. Sustainable public financing, pooling of resources, and stronger financial protection policies are essential to shift that burden away from individuals and families.

3. Preventative healthcare gets squeezed. Most governments tend to prioritise treating illness and disease over preventing them. Our analysis found a counterintuitive pattern: The share of prevention spending is higher in lower-income countries than in high-income countries. That is something to celebrate, right? Right??

Wrong (sort of): Prevention in lower-income countries is largely financed by external sources. Donor-funded vaccine campaigns, disease control programs, and other preventive initiatives increase the amount spent on prevention. While it’s good that prevention gets funded, the reliance on external financing poses a vulnerability. If (ahem, when) that money dries up, so too does prevention spending.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Planning to be at the World Bank & IMF Spring Meetings? Register for our co-hosted event with the AU on translating G20 commitments into concrete action.

• ONE’s CEO Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli managed to find time in her busy schedule to finish a PhD.

• David McNair spoke with the Lead Change podcast about how data can mobilise coalitions for change.

• Adrian Lovett spoke to The i Paper about cuts to life-saving support leaving the world more vulnerable to the next pandemic.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Nigerians have a Taylor Swift problem.

• 10 clichés in African governance discourse that need to die.

• Make the world safe again.

• How the solar boom is playing out in one West African village.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

A Climate Impact Lab report published this week puts into perspective the inequality of global warming. Heat deaths are expected to increase dramatically in certain parts of the world, offset in part by fewer cold-related deaths in other places. Below, we look at the biggest losers of a warming planet (you’ll never guess who… 😳).

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

BUT FIRST, A QUIZ

We’re quietly cooking up the next version of ONE Data—and you’re a part of it.

Got 3 minutes? Fill out this short survey and tell us what works, what doesn’t, and what you wish existed. If this is your first time hearing that we have a data platform, even better—we want to hear from you, too.

As a thank you, respondents will be invited to:

• Test new data features before anyone else

• Join a small working group shaping ONE Data

• Attend off-the-record, closed-door sessions with our team and other major leaders in the development community

👉 Take the survey

3 things to know

1. Where you live determines how likely you are to die from climate change. Lower-income countries stand to lose 10 times more people to deaths from high temperatures than rich countries. Hotter regions, including North Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia, will be hit hardest. Parts of Algeria, Burkina Faso, Niger, Pakistan, and Sudan are expected to see increases exceeding 80 deaths per 100,000 people. That’s on par with the rate of malaria deaths in places like Nigeria and Sierra Leone today.

Why it matters: Add climate change to the many ways in which people in high- and lower-income countries experience the world differently. Inequality is a key factor. The East African country of Djibouti is projected to see an increase in heat-related deaths double that of oil-rich Kuwait, despite their similar climate.

Subscribe now

2. Without economic growth, there would be seven times more temperature-related deaths globally. That’s roughly equivalent to global deaths from suicide. That points to the importance of sustained economic growth and development. Because without both, the fatal impact of heatwaves will be far greater. And they’ll be centred on the populations already struggling the most to get by: 16 of the 20 countries facing the most new heat-related deaths are lower income.

Why it matters: Lower-income countries are in desperate need of climate finance to help them address the climate change caused by rich countries. Yet rich countries have dragged their feet and offered plentiful excuses and insufficient finance. At the same time, they’ve designed a climate finance reporting system that enables them to claim more in climate finance than they actually contribute.

3. People in lower-income countries are being disproportionately impacted by a climate crisis they didn’t create. Having neither caused nor benefited from climate change, they now bear the brunt of its impacts. Meanwhile, the US and China have caused an estimated $10 trillion and $9 trillion in climate damages since 1990.

Why it matters: The injustices of colonialism and imperialism continue to compound. Today’s industrialised countries burned massive amounts of greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels to catalyse their economic growth. A lot of that fossil fuel was extracted from lower-income countries. Now those countries are being told (often by people in rich countries) to reduce their use of fossil fuels to protect the planet at the same time they are trying to industrialise and grow. It’s a dark irony not lost on populations tired of being told to “do as we say, not as we do” by Western powers.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Climate finance reporting is a mess. Here’s how to fix it.

• David McNair offers five observations on how the world is being changed during a volatile time.

IN THE QUEUE:

• The Iran war is pushing consumers to break up with fossil fuels.

• Why debt restructuring may be the least bad option for Senegal.

• Turning polycrisis into polytunity (and why “polycrisis” may be a Western-centric term).

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

I once spent several months living with a family in rural Uganda. Few people in the village had access to electricity or running water. One of the family members, a 13-year old boy named Mikey, spent his days at the local school and the rest of his time cooking, cleaning, and hauling water from a nearby stream.

Mikey was hardworking and resourceful, but he was not well educated. His school had some 200 students ages 5-18, and one teacher. At night, I would sometimes try to help Mikey with his homework. Two things quickly became clear: There were no textbooks; the students just wrote down what the teacher said, and 2) all of the classes were taught in English. Mikey spoke so little English that most of our communication involved hand gestures and smiles. He wasn’t learning anything.

Mikey’s story is a microcosm of a big problem: Billions of people living in lower-income countries are unable to achieve their full potential because the systems in which they live don’t enable it. Some of them are amongst the most innovative and hardworking people I’ve met. With access to better education and more opportunities, many of them would no doubt do great things.

The unrealised potential of billions of people is an unspoken tragedy of our time. Poverty and inequality are imposing a tax on humanity.

And we are all paying.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. Untapped potential is the single most significant difference between someone living in a high vs. a lower-income country. The global average for R&D researchers—the people involved in conceiving or creating new knowledge, products, or innovation—is 1,420 per million people. For context, Europe’s average is 3,935, North America’s exceeds 4,800. Denmark’s? 8,736. In contrast, the average number of researchers per 1 million people in low-income countries is 176. In Uganda, it’s 12. TWELVE.

Here’s what that means in practice: Denmark has over 51,000 researchers. Uganda, with a population eight times larger, has fewer than 700. That has obvious implications for the ability of Uganda—or dozens of other countries with relatively few researchers—to discover and develop new innovations, advance their economies, and help people escape poverty. Factors like poverty, poor education, and a lack of electricity, amongst others, limit opportunities for individuals to become researchers and innovators.

2. The disparity between rich and lower-income countries starts at an early age. In most high-income countries, less than 1% of children aged 6-11 are out of school. The average across low-income countries is 21%. In Nigeria—Africa’s most populous country—nearly 1 in 4 children are out of school.

Why it matters: That means that millions of children around the world are not learning the knowledge and skills needed to reach their full potential. And unequal access to primary education impacts higher education levels. Just 8% of Africans over the age of 25 have a bachelor’s degree. That’s half the global average and four times lower than in high-income countries.

3. Having few university graduates results in fewer people with technical expertise. Take IT, for instance. Africa has just four IT professionals per 10,000 people. That’s 10 times below the global average, and 30 times less than high-income countries.

Why it matters: The low number of IT professionals will make it difficult—if not impossible—for African countries to compete in a world in which AI and computer technology dominate. It also significantly diminishes the possibilities for new technology discoveries and tech start-ups. Who knows how many inventions or Apples, Googles, Nvidias, or OpenAIs will fail to be launched as a result?

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• ONE Data’s analysis of shifting development finance flows featured in Devex.

• Adrian Lovett’s response to the UK’s disastrous aid cuts featured in The Guardian, Independent, The Telegraph, and Daily Mirror.

• Elise Legault and Anthony Salloum highlight a glaring gap in Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s travel itinerary: Africa.

IN THE QUEUE:

• African sports fans, doctors, and musicians lament US travel ban.

• Africa’s energy revolution must be African-led.

• A former Pakistani minister on AI’s potential and dangers for developing countries.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Once again, billions of people find themselves impacted by a war of choice they had no say over. Four years ago, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended global supply chains, causing oil, food, and fertiliser prices to skyrocket and leading to higher interest rates. That had impacts far beyond Ukraine (as we noted at the time).

The US-Israel war with Iran is evolving quickly, so its fallout remains uncertain. But should it continue for several weeks or months, the consequences for developing countries are predictable, and likely dire, as we outline below.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director at ONE Data

Subscribe now

4 things to know

1. Oil price hikes will yield some winners and a lot of losers. Oil producing countries—think Angola, Brazil, Guyana, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Mexico—stand to benefit from higher oil prices. Oil importing countries, on the other hand, are poised for tough times. Some African countries only carry enough oil to cover a few days’ worth of demand; many others carry less than three weeks worth.

Source: Bloomberg

Why it matters: Angola and Nigeria planned for an average oil price of $61 and $65 per barrel in their 2026 budgets. Higher prices would represent a revenue windfall, especially if prices stay elevated for months. Many oil rich countries, however—especially in sub-Saharan Africa—lack sufficient domestic refining capabilities to meet their growing needs. So while they export oil and gas, they also import refined fuels. That means higher prices cut both ways. The budgets of non-oil producing developing countries would be hit hardest by higher prices, forcing them to take on more debt or cut spending (read: cut public services). Both options are bad, and could prove destabilising.

Source: Bloomberg

2. Say hello to higher food prices. Oil and gas are used to help grow or transport almost everything we eat. Natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilisers like urea. About one-third of the global fertiliser trade flows through the Strait of Hormuz, which is effectively closed. That’s caused a rapid spike in fertiliser prices, with more on the horizon. The average price of urea is up nearly 30% since the war’s outbreak. Nitrogen prices could double and phosphate prices may increase 50% if the war doesn’t end quickly.

Source: Global Footprint Network

Why it matters: Higher fertiliser prices can quickly lead to higher food prices. The World Bank estimates that every 1% increase in fertiliser prices can push up global food prices by 0.45%. That puts the squeeze on both farmers and consumers. High oil and gas prices played a key role the three times this century (2008, 2011, 2022) when food prices spiked. And higher food prices would come at a time when more than 300 million people already face acute hunger, aid budgets are shrinking, and existing humanitarian needs are underfunded.

3. Stronger dollar, rising interest rates, precarious debt. Price increases on oil, food, and other products could help strengthen the US dollar and lead to weaker local currencies and rising inflation. That would put further pressure on developing countries’ trade balances and likely force governments to hike interest rates. That dynamic is already on display in South Africa, where traders spooked by the war in Iran quickly reversed expectations of an interest rate cut.

Source: Bloomberg

Why it matters: Developing countries will pay roughly $450 billion to service $3.5 trillion in debt. 33 of those countries are already in or at high risk of debt distress. Higher interest rates—exacerbated by higher import costs and weaker currencies—would put government budgets in a serious bind. If the war and its aftershocks last for an extended period, some countries may need to restructure their debt or risk defaulting. The lack of an effective international debt restructuring mechanism increases the risk of the latter.

Developing countries’ debt stocks

Explore an interactive version of the chart

4. Significant losses of remittances from migrant workers. Foreign residents account for the majority of the population in several Middle East countries, including nearly 90% in Qatar and the UAE. Most of those workers send money home to support their families. The war has caused a number of Gulf countries to reduce or pause activities, including oil production and transportation. Should the war drag on, the loss of remittances will be felt back home by people who depend on them and are being squeezed by higher costs of living.

Explore an interactive version of the chart

Why it matters: The impact could be consequential. Millions of people in Africa and Asia are highly reliant on income generated in the Middle East, a critical pipeline now threatened by the war. Global remittances to developing countries exceed foreign direct investment and development aid, combined. The Middle East accounts for 15-20% of total remittances to developing countries; in recent years, that’s been $110-120 billion annually. That makes it one of the world’s largest remittance corridors. India receives over one-third of its $135 billion in remittances from the Middle East. Over half of the remittances received in Bangladesh and Pakistan originated in Gulf countries.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Elise Legault on Canada’s open goal with Africa.

• Adrian Lovett spoke to The Independent about the UK’s questionable use of an already slimmed down aid budget.

HELP WANTED:

• Data Engineer: Help build the data infrastructure that powers ONE Data’s products and platforms.

• Senior Product Manager: Lead the strategy, development, and ongoing improvement of ONE Data’s digital products and platforms.

IN THE QUEUE:

• How the war in Iran could ravage global food security.

• Migrant workers are disproportionately impacted by war in Iran.

• The little-known commodity fueling Sudan’s civil war.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

“Brilliance is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not.” — Linda Kamau

Empowering Africa’s women

Africa is on its way to becoming one of the world’s largest markets, with a young, vibrant population. The continent’s startup scene is defying expectations. Kenya alone has more than 50 tech hubs, and Francophone Africa is quietly cultivating a generation of disruptors.

Yet women are under-represented in Africa’s emerging tech sector: they account for less than 25% of the continent’s tech workforce. To understand how that gets changed, I spoke to someone who’s dedicated her career to lifting women up.

Linda Kamau is the Founder and Executive Director of AkiraChix. Based in Nairobi, AkiraChix’s mission is to provide promising young women in Africa with technology skills to compete economically and bridge the gender gap in tech. The organisation’s codeHive program is the only fully residential tech training program for young women in Africa.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length. All images courtesy of AkiraChix.

Subscribe now

Linda (2nd from the right) and the AkiraChix team

Joe: Kenya’s tech sector has been labeled the “Silicon Savannah.” Why is developing a thriving tech sector so critical for the future of African youth, especially young women?

Linda: There is immense brilliance and untapped potential among Africa’s youth, a generation that holds the key to the continent’s future. It is essential to tap into this talent to develop homegrown solutions to the most pressing challenges. A thriving tech industry creates high-growth and high-income employment opportunities that would help accomplish this.

When girls are included in building technology, the solutions created are more inclusive and responsive to real community needs. Diverse perspectives lead to better products, stronger innovation, and more sustainable development outcomes.

Investing in girls’ participation in tech is not just a gender issue, it is an economic and development imperative.

J: Imagine it’s 2050. What is your ideal vision for African women innovators in technology?

L: In my 2050 vision, African women are founders, investors, engineers, and policymakers. Their leadership is no longer the exception but the norm, transforming the tech sector and accelerating inclusive economic development across the continent. The evidence shows that when women are included, industries perform better. Diverse leadership drives innovation, strengthens problem-solving, and contributes to stronger economic growth.

J: What are the major obstacles that could derail that vision from becoming reality?

L: One of the major obstacles is the widening gap between academic education and the future of work. The education systems in many African countries are not adequately preparing young women for emerging industries and the evolving demands of the labor market. As a result, many do not have the competencies required for high-growth sectors like technology. This disconnect limits their ability to access job opportunities and compete in a rapidly changing global economy.

Without deliberate reforms to align education systems with the skills required for the future of work, particularly in STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics], young women risk being excluded from the very opportunities that economic transformation is creating.

J: What is AkiraChix doing to help empower Africa’s women?

L: We believe that training young women to enter Africa’s burgeoning tech industry is the single greatest opportunity to improve their economic independence. Rather than traditional classroom instruction, codeHive uses a hands-on, human-centered design approach that fosters creativity, critical thinking, and practical problem-solving. Students graduate not just as coders, but as confident problem-solvers and innovators. The transformation is not just professional, it is deeply personal.

A key part of our success lies in our partnerships with the tech industry. We collaborate closely with tech allies to set inclusive standards for hiring and retaining talent, ensuring brilliant young women who might otherwise be overlooked have the opportunity to succeed.

AkiraChix’s impact to date

The impact is already evident. Our graduates are securing high-paying jobs earning more than their peers, supporting their families, transforming communities, and influencing conversations and policies in a tech industry that has historically excluded women. They are not just participating in tech, they are shaping it.

Yet, we have only scratched the surface. As we expand across sub-Saharan Africa, our goal is to reach more talented young women who lack access to opportunity.

We believe brilliance is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not.

We’re working to close that gap and ensure young women are not only prepared for the future of work but positioned to lead it.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• David McNair joined the China in Africa Podcast to discuss why China isn’t Africa’s biggest debt problem.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Women globally hold just 64% of the legal rights of men.

• China’s effort to shape the news in Africa isn’t finding an audience.

• Zambia’s president says Africa should not pick sides in minerals race.

• The case for a historic reallocation to emerging markets.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

One day while doing research for my dissertation in Equatorial Guinea—an oil rich yet poverty-stricken country marred by rampant corruption—I sprinted for cover under an awning to escape a sudden downpour. There, I sat and chatted with a local man I’d never met before and never saw again.

He began to talk about corruption by government elites, no small act in a place where people get arbitrarily arrested, or worse, for criticising the government. At one point he gestured toward a new Mercedes sedan driving by, noting that corruption was what enabled government officials to drive expensive vehicles in a country where most people lack reliable electricity.

As we parted, he said something that both moved me and made me feel incredibly inadequate: “When you leave, don’t forget us.” It was a plea for help by a man surviving in a country where citizens feel powerless against an iron-fisted ruling regime.

Later, I spoke to a civil society activist in the country. He told me that the US Embassy was one of the only places in the country where he and other democracy activists felt safe using the internet without fear of government surveillance. I’ve since encouraged US foreign service members serving in Equatorial Guinea and other democratically-challenged countries to find ways big and small to support the efforts of local activists taking incredible risks.

Until very recently, the US was a champion of democracy, good governance, and human rights around the world. Sure, there were plenty of things it got wrong, but there’s no denying the considerable resources—billions of dollars per year—allocated to the task.

Much of that funding fell victim to the drastic cuts to US aid in 2025. 97% of USAID’s democracy, human rights, and governance portfolio was terminated, and the agency itself dismantled. Over half of the related State Department programs were killed. All told, over $14 billion in US government-funded democracy and governance assistance was cut, affecting work in more than 120 countries.

We’re starting to learn about the consequences of those cuts, and well, it’s not great.

Below, we look at the emerging evidence and what it means for a world in which democracy is on the decline.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. The US cuts have crippled organisations worldwide. In surveys, respondents have reported that US funding made up over 40% of their organisational budgets. The result has been widespread layoffs, suspended programs, and in some cases, closure.

Source: Global Democracy Coalition

Why it matters: The loss of US funding is significantly weakening the democracy and good governance ecosystems. Civil society organisations and independent media, which play a critical role in pushing for government transparency and accountability, are hampered or disappearing. Repressive regimes are happily doing more repression. As Regina Waugh from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems recounted being told by an activist in an authoritarian country: “My government is so happy that the US doesn’t care about democracy anymore.”

2. An estimated $150 million in annual support for media and internet freedom was lost in the US aid cuts. That includes cuts in places where media already face considerable challenges, like Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Ukraine. In South Sudan, the only independent national FM radio outlet had to cut three-quarters of its staff. Independent journalists in Myanmar are working without pay.

Why it matters: “Governments are taking advantage of the cuts—and the decreased international attention they entail—to arrest or harass citizens and civil society organisations that have advocated for governance reforms and human rights.” That’s the view of Rene Valiente from the human rights organisation, Cristosal, speaking at a Devex event this week.

She would know: She and dozens of other journalists have fled El Salvador since January 2025 as the country’s strongman leader cracked down on the media and civil society following the retreat of the US’s support for democracy programs. In May 2025, the government passed a Foreign Agents law that imposes a 30% tax on any funding organisations receive from international donors. Nearly all community radio stations in the country received USAID support before the aid cuts; most say that the Foreign Agents law will negatively impact their work and sustainability.

3. The US funding cuts are happening alongside a global deterioration in freedom and civil liberties. Just 7% of the world’s population lives in countries with free or relatively open civic space. Civil society is under severe attack in 122 of 198 countries and territories. And freedom in the world has declined for 19 consecutive years, according to Freedom House.

Source: Freedom House

Why it matters: Democratic backsliding isn’t a new phenomenon, but ceding the battle for freedom to authoritarian regimes is. While some other donors—like the EU, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and certain philanthropies—have upped their funding for democracy and good governance over the past year, they aren’t able to fill the enormous gap left by the US cuts. Nearly 60% of surveyed democracy and rights organisations report having been unable to make up for the loss of US funding from bilateral, multilateral, or philanthropic donors.

FIND DATA FAST

• The ONE Data Agent™: An AI-enabled tool that enables you to search tens of millions of data points on health financing in seconds.

• Net flows dashboard: Tired of scouring complex databases for developing country data on debt service and loans? Same. So we built an easy-to-use dashboard.

• ODA dashboard: Reliable data on aid to developing countries, searchable and downloadable by recipient, sector, and more.

• Trade Explorer: Explore, visualise, and download data on annual global trade flows by country and product.

FROM THE ONE TEAM

• ONE’s Adrian Lovett on the UK’s failed aid cuts and why it should change course.

IN THE QUEUE

• US aid cuts fueled conflict in Africa.

• Don’t look now, but the Green Transition is still happening.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

One in four people on the planet will live in Africa by 2050. The continent’s population will nearly double between now and then, to 2.5 billion.

Powering that growth poses a major challenge. Currently, 600 million Africans lack access to electricity. How will African countries solve that problem and catalyse economic growth without worsening the effects of climate change already impacting them?

A few years ago, my colleague Olawunmi Ola-Busari and I wrote about how Africa—given its geographic and natural resource advantages—could become a green energy powerhouse.

There is now evidence that a “solar take-off” is happening in Africa. Should it continue to soar, it will have major implications for both the region and the world.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

3 things to know

1. Renewables are the world’s fastest growing source of electricity. And it isn’t even close: They’ve grown five times faster than gas and 16 times faster than coal since 2014. Meanwhile, the use of coal and gas to generate electricity has plateaued over the past five years.

Why it matters: Readers of IPCC reports or, well, the news, are painfully aware that the world is doing a rather poor job of keeping its climate promises. But it’s not all bad news: The rapid expansion of renewable energy over the past decade has been pretty incredible. That’s especially important given the rapid population growth—and increased energy demands—in developing regions. Every solar panel or wind turbine that gets erected keeps a little more carbon in the global carbon budget.

Subscribe now

2. Africa has 60% of the world’s best solar resources. Yet it has just 1.5% of the world’s installed solar capacity. Eighteen of the top 30 countries globally with the potential to generate solar power are in Africa. That presents an incredible opportunity—if governments can seize it. There’s evidence that they are: Africa’s installed solar increased ninefold over the past decade. And Africa’s solar imports from China (which makes 80% of the world’s solar panels) rose by 60% in 2024-25. Over half of Africa’s new electricity capacity this year will come from solar.

Source: Ember

Why it matters: In many ways, Africa is an important climate and renewables bellwether. Given its rapid population growth, rising energy needs, and enormous solar (and wind) potential, Africa will play a pivotal role in shaping the climate. If it harnesses its unmatched solar potential alongside its many critical minerals, its future looks, ahem, bright. 😎

3. 25 African countries imported at least 100 MW of solar panels in 2024-25. That’s an increase from 15 countries the year before. That could significantly boost many countries’ ability to generate electricity. For instance, if Sierra Leone installed all the solar panels it imported last year, they would generate electricity equivalent to 61% of its existing electricity. And solar is a critical part of the Mission 300 initiative, which aims to expand electricity access to 300 million people in Africa by 2030.

Source: Ember

Why it matters: Solar panels are cheap and getting cheaper. That makes them an appealing option, both for governments and for individuals looking to generate electricity without breaking the bank. Rooftop solar could help overcome the challenges of getting electricity to rural areas far from the electrical grid, and help cut down the number of people living without electricity. But utility-scale solar projects will be critical for ensuring that robust grid systems exist to meet the heavy electricity demands of industries and urban areas.

FIND DATA FAST:

• The ONE Data Agent™: An AI-enabled tool that enables you to search tens of millions of data points on health financing in seconds.

• Net flows dashboard: Tired of scouring complex databases for developing country data on debt service and loans? Same. So we built an easy-to-use dashboard.

• ODA dashboard: Reliable data on aid to developing countries, searchable and downloadable by recipient, sector, and more.

• Trade Explorer: Explore, visualise, and download data on annual global trade flows by country and product.

MORE FROM ONE DATA:

• The answer to attacks on the UN is to revitalise it — not sideline it, says David McNair.

• 🎧 Must listen: David had a riveting conversation with Dan Banik about the future of activism and global development in an age of overlapping crises for the In Pursuit of Development podcast.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Africa’s energy sector faces pivotal choices.

• Africa needs solar farms, not just solar islands.

• At the Munich Security Conference, development tried to remain relevant.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

The world has a munitions problem. Global military spending surpassed $2.6 trillion in 2024 (the latest year for which there is data). That’s a 350% increase since 2000. Annual military spending has risen by one trillion dollars in just the past decade.

Meanwhile, governments are cutting funding for development and spending far less than is needed to address climate change. They claim there is no money for such things. Yet many of those same governments spend billions of dollars each year buying guns, tanks, missiles, fighter jets, and more.

Countries have a right to protect themselves. The problem is that many countries spend massive amounts on their militaries while underfunding development and diplomacy. Those programs help mitigate future risks and conflicts—at a much smaller price tag—and make military intervention less likely.

With the annual Munich Security Conference about to start, a new ONE Campaign analysis highlights just how stark the imbalance is between military spending and spending on development and diplomacy. The latter two get much less attention, but are incredibly cost-effective.

As former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pithily put it: “Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.”

— Joe Kraus, ONE Data Senior Policy Director

3 things to know

1. The top 10 OECD defense spenders allocate $7 to defense for every $1 spent on development and diplomacy, combined. Overall, more than 85% of their security-relevant spending is devoted to defense. That leaves less than 15% for the tools that help reduce fragility, manage shocks, and sustain political stability. Those 10 countries spent a combined $1.45 trillion on their militaries in 2024, up nearly 30% over the previous decade.

Source: The ONE Campaign

Why it matters: Investing disproportionately in defense without corresponding support for development and diplomacy may yield temporary deterrence, but it does not deliver the broader human security—health, stability, economic opportunity—on which lasting peace depends. True security is not only what protects the state but what safeguards people’s lives, rights, and resilience.

2. The top 10 OECD defense spenders spent 65 times more on defense than on global health in 2024. Spending on development by those countries has plateaued or declined as a share of GDP. Their share of development spending directed to fragile and conflict-affected states has fallen sharply, even as global fragility rises.

Source: The ONE Campaign

Why it matters: Health’s share of total development spending among these countries has declined by almost 15% over the past decade. That’s despite overwhelming evidence that strong health systems are among the most effective investments for preventing instability, protecting human capital, and reinforcing state legitimacy. This retreat from prevention is strategically inefficient. Fragile contexts now host the majority of the world’s extreme poor and generate insecurity spillovers that are far more expensive to manage with military tools than to prevent through sustained civilian investment.

3. None of the top 10 risks over a 10‑year horizon are military in nature. That’s according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025. Instead, extreme weather, environmental degradation, large‑scale forced migration, and technological disruption dominate the list of long‑term risks.

Global risks ranked by severity over the short and long term

Source: World Economic Forum

Why it matters: The current one-dimensional focus on defense leaves the world dangerously unprepared for the defining security challenges of the future. Climate change illustrates this mismatch: Under current trajectories, unchecked climate change could reduce global GDP by 17% and cause economic losses of $38 trillion per year by 2050 through damage to health, productivity, agriculture, and infrastructure.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Report: The Security Paradox: More Defense, Less Stability?

• Analysis: Conflict prevention is 100 times less costly than crisis response.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Google backs African push to reclaim AI language data

• DR Congo inks AI deal with US firm to map country’s critical minerals

• Trump cut the cash. The African Development Bank raised a record $11bn anyway

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

“Diamonds are forever.” That catch phrase, crafted in 1947 for De Beers, has—much like the product it was designed to sell—proved to be very durable. It’s been a mainstay of ad campaigns ever since, and has inspired movies, music, and even a book.

Diamond revenues, on the other hand, are not as permanent, as diamond-exporting countries are finding out. The market for natural diamonds is amid a historic reset.

It may never recover.

That has major implications for the countries that rely on diamond revenues to drive their economies and fund health systems and schools. They are experiencing an abrupt wake-up call without many good short-term solutions.

Turns out, diamonds are forever, until they aren’t.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director at ONE Data

3 things to know

1. Diamond prices have dropped precipitously in recent years. Since hitting a 20-year high in March 2022, prices have declined by 47%. That’s in large part due to the surge in demand for lab-grown diamonds (though US tariffs certainly haven’t helped).

Explore an interactive version of the chart

Why it matters: The average price for polished natural diamonds is at its lowest point in over two decades, lower today than during the global financial crisis. In response, a group of diamond-producing countries in southern Africa have joined forces to invest 1% of annual diamond revenues into a global marketing campaign to put the shine back on natural diamonds. They launched a “Real. Rare. Responsible” campaign to brand natural diamonds as unique and ethically sourced.

2. Lab-grown diamonds enjoy several market advantages. They can be produced relatively rapidly, in weeks instead of aeons (the fancy term for billions of years), like their natural counterparts. That makes lab diamonds a lot less expensive—they are generally 70-85% cheaper at retail than natural diamonds. And concerns about “blood diamonds” have helped popularise synthetic diamonds, which are visually identical to the naked eye.

Can you tell the difference?

Source: With Clarity

Why it matters: Diamonds were always a stretch purchase for anyone not in an upper-income class. Synthetic diamonds have changed that. They’ve made it easier for people to enjoy the luxe of a diamond at a fraction of the cost. That has upended the natural diamond market. Lab-grown diamonds now account for 20% of global sales, up from 1% just a decade ago.

3. Diamond-producing countries are feeling the pain. Botswana—the world’s top diamond producer by value—relies on diamond revenues for 80% of its exports and a third of government income. Falling diamond prices have hit the country hard: Mineral revenues dropped 60% in 2025/26 from their long-term average. That caused Botswana to have the largest budget gap in sub-Saharan Africa last year. The country has taken on loads of new debt, causing its debt-to-gdp ratio to nearly double over the past two years, exceeding a legislative limit. Meanwhile, Botswana is sitting on a glut of diamonds for which it can’t find a buyer.

Source: Bloomberg

Why it matters: Botswana’s President Duma Boko has called the drop in diamond prices “a national social existential threat.” The government has been forced to cut spending and declared a public health emergency last August due to a shortage of medicines and medical equipment. And unlike oil—a cyclical natural resource that many countries are dependent upon—diamond prices are unlikely to rebound. The price drop is due to structural, not cyclical, factors. That reality is reflected in repeated devaluations of De Beers by its owner Anglo American Plc. The firm is reportedly trying to sell De Beers, the world’s largest diamond company.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Media: The great reversal: Why Africa is now paying more than it receives in global development finance.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Trump advisers refine their Africa strategy

• How a coup attempt in Nigeria is a stark warning to the region

• Ghana and Google ink an AI education deal

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Welcome to The Insider newsletter! (formerly known as Aftershocks). We’ll continue to deliver the same incisive, world class analysis and commentary, just under a new name. With change comes opportunity: You can now join the conversation by clicking on the comment button at the bottom of the page. We want to hear your perspective!

That’s not the only exciting news. At ONE Data, we’re pursuing an ambitious agenda to make development finance an easily accessible public good. To learn more, see our white paper. As part of that vision, we’ve just announced the “Development Finance Observatory,” a $4 million collaboration with Google.org and The Rockefeller Foundation. Launching this year, this first-of-its-kind, interactive data collaboration will improve the accessibility of development finance data and reduce data fragmentation. That will help collapse the time between data and insight, enabling finance ministers, journalists, investors, and analysts to follow the money by asking natural language questions.

Today, with technical infrastructure support from Google’s Data Commons and produced by ONE Data, we launched a new analysis, which discovered a “Great Reversal” in Chinese finance to developing countries. Below, we highlight a few of the key takeaways.

— Joe Kraus, Editor of The Insider and Senior Policy Director at ONE Data

3 things to know

1. Net flows to low- and middle-income countries have declined by 25%. That’s when comparing flows for the period 2010-14 with 2020-24. Rising debt service payments have consumed an ever-larger share of gross inflows.

Why it matters: For the last few years, developing countries have been spending more money on debt repayments to official and private lenders than they are receiving in new loans. Investments in official development assistance have kept most countries above water. With countries like the US, France, Germany, and the UK announcing drastic cuts to development assistance—at least 23% by 2027—low- and middle-income countries will struggle to access the affordable capital needed to stay afloat.

2. Chinese finance has undergone a “Great Reversal.” China went from being a net provider of finance—transferring $48 billion to low- and lower-middle-income countries a decade ago—to a net extractor of $24 billion. Africa has experienced the most dramatic reversal: It went from receiving $30 billion to paying out $22 billion, a $52 billion swing.

The “Great Reversal” of Chinese finance

Source: ONE Data

Why it matters: Developing country governments are increasingly facing the reality of financing health, education, and infrastructure spending from domestic budgets. Some countries have the fiscal space to finance their domestic needs. But others are grappling with expensive debt service payments that threaten to cut into domestic spending. Dozens of countries are spending more to service debt than they spend on health or education.

3. Multilateral providers now account for 56% of net flows. That’s up from 28% just a decade ago. Multilateral institutions—including multilateral development banks—have increased their financing by 124%. Private finance, on the other hand, has evaporated. It plummeted from $115 billion in net new resources over the 2010-14 period to only $7.3 billion in the last five years, and now accounts for just 1% of net finance flows.

Why it matters: The dominance in multilateral funding is likely to continue as bilateral flows continue to retreat. That may not be all bad: Developing country leaders say that multilateral providers are the most influential and helpful, according to a 2024 survey. But at a time of declining bilateral aid, the precipitous drop in private sector finance is concerning.

FROM THE ONE DATA TEAM:

• Press release: Google.org, ONE Data, and The Rockefeller Foundation to launch new Development Finance Observatory in 2026.

• Report: The Great Reversal: Multilaterals step up finance to developing countries as China steps back.

• White paper: Reimagining how evidence drives change.

• Media: ONE Data’s insights featured in African Business.

• Media: David McNair spoke to Al Jazeera about Greenland, AI, and progress on poverty and hunger.

• Analysis: David McNair on the need for institutional reform and strategic clarity in global development.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Adapt, shrink or die: the global crisis in humanitarian aid.

• Afreximbank cuts ties with Fitch over rating cut.

• Is the “Board of Peace” a threat to international cooperation?

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Leave a comment

Taxing problems

We live in an era of extreme inequality. The world’s 10 richest men—and yes, they are all men—own more than the bottom 3.1 billion people.

If that weren’t bad enough, avoiding taxes—a key source of government revenue—has become its own industry. Multinational corporations and wealthy individuals are avoiding taxes—often through technically legal means—at an alarming rate.

Meanwhile, lower-income countries are struggling to find the revenues needed to provide basic services. High-income countries are pointing to their own revenue challenges to defend aid cuts.

One solution for both groups of countries: Close tax loopholes. Doing so would raise hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues annually, as we outline below.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

3 things to know

1. Countries lose an estimated $492 billion in tax a year to global tax abuse. 71% of that is due to tax abuse by multinational corporations; 29% is lost to offshore tax evasion by wealthy individuals.

Why it matters: The tax losses for higher-income countries are greater in absolute terms, but lower-income countries’ losses account for a greater share of their budgets. For example: lower-income countries lose five times as much as higher-income countries as a share of public health budgets. Africa lost an amount equivalent to 53% of health spending between 2016 and 2021 due to corporate tax abuse; that’s nearly 20 points higher than the global average. That means countries have far less money to spend on social services or their energy transitions than they otherwise would. Ultimately, their citizens pay the price.

Explore an interactive version of the chart

2. 33 lower-income countries are in—or at high risk of—debt distress. Debt service payments have increased substantially in the past decade, in part due to higher interest payments on private loans. 40% of the world’s population lives in countries that spend more on debt service than health or education.

Why it matters: High debt levels are, in part, a result of countries bringing in insufficient revenues. Case in point: Tax policies that favor corporations and the wealthy were a key driver of Sri Lanka’s 2022 debt default and economic crisis. Those policies also contributed to the country’s chronic underfunding of education and other public services. That’s a recurring problem across many lower-income countries trying to meet their debt obligations amidst revenue shortfalls.

3. A handful of countries are to blame for the majority of corporate tax losses. Nearly three quarters of those losses flow into tax havens with low effective tax rates. That includes the UK and its Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies (which account for 23% of global tax losses), Hong Kong (12.4%), Ireland (9.9%), Singapore (7.8%), and Switzerland (5.4%). For every $1 that corporations shift into tax havens, they avoid paying $5 in taxes, on average, to governments where the actual business activities take place.

Explore an interactive version of the chart

Why it matters: Corporate tax abuse amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from governments to corporations and their shareholders, most of whom live in the world’s wealthiest countries. It has contributed to—and helps perpetuate—historically high levels of inequality. But momentum for reform is growing. The African Group at the UN is leading an effort to establish a UN tax convention to make the global tax system fairer. And efforts to improve transparency of tax payments—a vital first step to tax reform—are gaining steam.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• We uncovered a hidden fragility in health spending.

• ONE’s CEO Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli highlights six opportunities to strengthen Africa’s food and nutrition systems.

• David McNair on the outcome of the 7th African Union–European Union Summit.

IN THE QUEUE:

• The world is round, but our tax loopholes shouldn’t be.

• How ultra-processed foods are reshaping diets in low- and middle-income countries.

• 2025 Goalkeepers report: We can’t stop at almost.

• How many lives would be saved if Africa had other regions’ child mortality rates?

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.