Carta Blanca Economics · Multilateral Transparency Observatory · Study 001
Flows Observatory
Fourteen years of published UN system financial data: $777B of revenue across 48 entities, from 230 government contributors as listed by the CEB. Every figure comes from primary public sources and is defined in flows.json; this page shows the full series behind the Key Findings.
Scroll
01, Origin
Where the money comes from
$777B across 14 years. The main structural trend is the rising share of earmarked contributions relative to core and assessed contributions.
What you're seeing: UN revenue splits into four types. Earmarked = donor specifies exactly what it funds (restricted). Assessed = mandatory dues set by treaty. Core = voluntary but unrestricted, agencies decide use. Other = fees, interest, in-kind. The rising red area is earmarked funding.
Exhibit 1
Revenue by funding type, 2011-2024CEB Financial Statistics
7.8%
Core (un-earmarked) contributions were 7.8% of total revenue in 2024 and 11.4% of voluntary contributions, the denominator the Funding Compact uses. The 2024 value is close to the series low of 7.7% (2020).
Source: CEB Financial Statistics 2024 · Core funding $5.3B of $68.3B
Earmarked (donor-controlled)
Source: CEB Financial Statistics, 2011–2024.
Exhibit 2
Earmarked %, 49.6 to 60.62011–2024
Source: CEB Financial Statistics, 2011–2024.
Exhibit 3
Core funding, % of total revenue2011–2024
Source: CEB Financial Statistics, 2011–2024.
Exhibit 4
Contributor types 2021-2024Who gives
Source: CEB Financial Statistics, revenue by contributor type, 2021–2024.
▼
Core funding: 7.8% of total revenue in 2024 (11.4% of voluntary), down from 10.6% in 2011. The lowest value in the series was 7.7% in 2020.
≡
Assessed contributions roughly flat in nominal terms ($13.3B to $14.5B a year). Total revenue rose +72% in nominal terms over the same period (+69% at constant perimeter), so their share fell from 33.5% to 20.2%.
02, Routing
Which agencies carry the flow
48 entities with radically different funding models and overhead profiles. Acronyms explained below each chart.
Agency acronyms: WFP World Food Programme · IOM International Organization for Migration · UNHCR UN Refugee Agency · UNDP UN Development Programme · UNICEF UN Children's Fund · WHO World Health Organization · FAO Food & Agriculture Organization · UNFPA UN Population Fund · UNRWA UN Relief & Works Agency (Palestine refugees) · UN-DPO Dept of Peace Operations · UNOPS UN Office for Project Services.
Exhibit 5
Top 10 entities by revenue, 2011-2024Hover legend to isolate
Each line is one agency's total annual revenue. WFP's series shows the 2022 peak and the 2023 fall, largely in earmarked funding.
Source: CEB Financial Statistics, 2011–2024.
Exhibit 6
Funding profile by entitySorted by earmarked %
Each agency's revenue split into earmarked, core, assessed and other. Over 2011–2024, 90.5% of WFP revenue and 90.5% of IOM revenue was earmarked. UNOPS is funded almost entirely by its own service fees.
Source: CEB Financial Statistics, 2011–2024.
Exhibit 7
Overhead ratio, enabling vs programmeSelf-reported
Overhead = share of expenditure on "enabling functions" (admin, management, fundraising) vs direct programme delivery. Small specialised agencies (IFAD, IMO, ISA) run higher overhead as fixed costs spread over smaller budgets. Acronyms: IFAD Agricultural Development Fund · IMO Maritime Org · ISA Seabed Authority · UNFCCC Climate Convention · WIPO Intellectual Property · UNAIDS Joint AIDS Programme.
Source: CEB Financial Statistics, expenditure by enabling function.
Exhibit 8
Revenue per staff member, 2024Efficiency proxy
Revenue per staff = total 2024 revenue ÷ 2024 headcount. High values mean small teams managing large budgets, often pass-through or procurement-heavy mandates; it is not an efficiency measure. UNRWA is excluded: its CEB HR headcount (237 staff) is not comparable with its revenue base.
Source: CEB Financial Statistics; CEB HR Statistics, 2024.
Exhibit 9
Procurement volume vs LDC sourcing %, 2023UNGM ASR
LDC = Least Developed Countries. Bars = procurement volume ($M). Line = % sourced from LDCs. FAO sources 46.4% from LDCs; PAHO 1.1%.
Source: UNGM Annual Statistical Report 2023.
!
WFP and IOM: 90.5% of revenue earmarked (2011–2024 pooled). They are the second and eighth largest entities by cumulative revenue.
◆
UNOPS: 99.9% of revenue from its own activities (2011–2024), mostly project management and delivery fees rather than contributions.
03, Concentration, and contributions relative to population and GDP
Contributions relative to population and GDP
Absolute contributions are one measure. Contributions per citizen and as a share of GDP are two others, which rank countries differently. The numerator in all three is total government contributions in 2024, assessed contributions included (a share set by the UN scale of assessments, not chosen by the contributor).
Three ways to measure a government contributor: Absolute = total dollars (USA dominates). Per capita = total 2024 contributions, assessed included, divided by population (Norway $221 vs USA $43). % of GDP = the same numerator divided by GDP. The same country ranks differently on each. Population and GDP: World Bank 2023.
Exhibit 10
Direct bilateral government HHI & US share %Excludes pooled funds and EU channels
Direct bilateral government HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, excludes pooled funds and EU channels): the sum of squared shares of each government contributor as listed by the CEB. The 1,000 and 2,500 lines are the US DOJ merger thresholds, used here only as a scale. The orange line is the US share alone.
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor, 2013–2024.
Exhibit 11
Top 5 contributor share evolution2013-2024
How the share of the top 5 governments shifted. Japan fell from 9.2% to 4.9% of government contributions (2013 to 2024); China rose from 2.1% to 5.3%.
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor, 2013–2024.
Exhibit 12
Contribution per citizen vs % of GDPPopulation and GDP adjusted · assessed included
Each bubble is a donor country. X-axis = contribution per citizen (USD). Y-axis = contribution as % of national GDP. Bubble size = total contribution (assessed and voluntary). Top-right = highest on both measures (Norway, Denmark, Sweden). Bottom-left = lowest on both measures (China, India, Brazil).
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor; World Bank Open Data (population and GDP).
Exhibit 13
Contribution per citizen, top 20Population-adjusted
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor; World Bank Open Data (population and GDP).
Exhibit 14
Contribution as % of GDP, top 20Economy-adjusted
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor; World Bank Open Data (population and GDP).
Exhibit 15
Top 30 government contributors as listed by the CEB, total & growth 2013-2024🔴 dominant · 🟢 growing · 🟡 declining
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor, 2013–2024.
!
United States: 30.6% of government contributions in 2024 ($14.3B). Per citizen: $43; as a share of GDP: 0.052%. Largest in absolute terms; mid-ranked relative to population and GDP (assessed included).
▲
Norway: $221 per citizen (5× the US) and 0.25% of GDP, the highest of the 25 contributors shown on both measures (assessed included). Denmark ($135) and Sweden ($91) follow.
▼
Per citizen, assessed included: China $1.76, Brazil $1.30, India $0.15. Contributions from the three largest emerging economies are low relative to population.
04, Endpoint
Where the money lands
Top 40 recipient countries. Color: 🔴 conflict · 🟡 donor-country presence · 🔵 recipient. Hover for GDP per capita and UN spend per person.
Why donor countries appear as recipients: USA ($8.4B) and Switzerland ($7.5B) rank high because UN headquarters operations in New York and Geneva count as in-country expenditure, salaries, facilities, services. This is operational spend, not aid.
Exhibit 16
Top 40 recipient countries, cumulative 2013-2024🔴 conflict · 🟡 donor-HQ · 🔵 recipient · hover for per-capita
Source: CEB Expenditure by country, 2013–2024.
Exhibit 17
Expenditure by function, 2018-2024CEB
Humanitarian = emergency relief. Development = long-term capacity. Peace Operations = peacekeeping. The mix shifts toward humanitarian over time.
Source: CEB Expenditure by function, 2018–2024.
Exhibit 18
Expenditure by region, 2013-2024CEB
Source: CEB Expenditure by region, 2013–2024.
↑
Change in UN expenditure 2017 to 2024, excluding UN peacekeeping (DPO): Ukraine +712%, DRC +88%, Mali +38%, CAR +18%. UN-DPO reports by country only from 2019, so it is excluded from the comparison; no cause is inferred from the change. CAR = Central African Republic; DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo.
05, Human Capital
Who works for the UN, and where they come from
130,948 staff in 2024. The two charts below are mirror images: the left shows each agency broken by the nationality of its staff; the right shows each nationality broken by the agencies they work for.
How to read these: In Staff by Organisation, each horizontal bar is one agency; coloured segments show which nationalities staff it. In Top Nationalities, each bar is one country; segments show which agencies employ them. Country name colours: 🟡 Western donor nation · 🔴 conflict-affected country · 🔵 other. Hover any segment for exact counts.
Exhibit 19
Staff by Organisation, segmented by nationalityTop 18 agencies · 50 nationalities
Source: CEB HR Statistics, staff by nationality.
Exhibit 20
Top 25 nationalities, segmented by agency🟡 donor · 🔴 conflict · 🔵 other
Source: CEB HR Statistics, staff by nationality.
Exhibit 21
Top 20 duty stations, segmented by agency🟡 HQ donor country · 🔴 field/conflict · 🔵 other · Where staff physically work
Duty station = where a staff member is physically posted (not their nationality). Switzerland (Geneva) and USA (New York) dominate because of HQ concentration.
Source: CEB HR Statistics, staff by duty station.
Exhibit 22
% Women staff, 2018-2024Target: 50%
Source: CEB HR Statistics, 2018–2024.
Exhibit 23
Gender by staff categoryField Service gap
Field Service (security, logistics in conflict zones) has the lowest share of women of the four categories: 31.0% in 2024.
Source: CEB HR Statistics.
◆
France and Italy provide the most international staff. 14.0% of Italian staff-years are at WFP and 13.3% at FAO, both headquartered in Rome.
◆
Switzerland (83.4K) and the United States (72.7K) record the most staff-years (2018–2024), reflecting headquarters in Geneva and New York.
06, SDG Alignment
Which goals get funded, and who delivers them
UN expenditure by Sustainable Development Goal (2018-2024). Click any SDG card to highlight its bar. The wheel shows proportional funding. The stacked chart reveals which agency dominates each goal.
SDGs = the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030 agenda). Each number maps to a global target: SDG 1 No Poverty · 2 Zero Hunger · 3 Good Health · 4 Quality Education · 5 Gender Equality · 6 Clean Water · 7 Affordable Energy · 8 Decent Work · 9 Industry & Innovation · 10 Reduced Inequalities · 11 Sustainable Cities · 12 Responsible Consumption · 13 Climate Action · 14 Life Below Water · 15 Life on Land · 16 Peace & Justice · 17 Partnerships.
Exhibit 24
SDG expenditure, 2018-2024 total (expenditure; budget where no expenditure is reported)Click card → highlights bar
Source: CEB Expenditure by SDG, 2018–2024.
Click to highlight · double-click resets
Exhibit 25
SDG expenditure wheel, proportional to reported expenditureUN SDG colour identity
Each wedge is sized by reported SDG expenditure 2018–2024. SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 16 (Peace) are the largest; SDG 14 (Oceans) and SDG 7 (Energy) the smallest.
Source: CEB Expenditure by SDG, 2018–2024.
Exhibit 26
SDG trend, top 6 goals2018-2024
Source: CEB Expenditure by SDG, 2018–2024.
Exhibit 27
SDG fastest growth rates2018→2024
Source: CEB Expenditure by SDG, 2018–2024.
Exhibit 28
Agency contribution by SDG, who delivers which goalStacked · concentration risk
Each SDG bar segmented by delivering agency. WFP reports 85.2% of SDG 2, WHO leads SDG 3 and IOM reports 59.5% of SDG 10. WFP and IOM tag SDGs on budget, not expenditure (see Methodology).
Source: CEB Expenditure by SDG, 2018–2024.
16
SDG 16 (Peace, justice and institutions) is the second-largest goal. UN-DPO (peacekeeping) reports 61.4% of it.
14
SDG 14 (Life Below Water): $0.92B, 0.3% of reported SDG expenditure.
07 · Share of the largest contributor
Share of the largest government contributor, by entity
Arithmetic on 2024 CEB data: the share of each entity's government contributions that comes from the United States. A structural measurement, not a policy position.
How this is calculated: US contribution to each entity ÷ all government contributions to that entity (both from CEB Revenue by Government Donor 2024). This single denominator is used on every page.
Exhibit 29
US share of each entity's government contributions, 2024CEB 2024 · arithmetic only
57.9%
US contributions were 57.9% of UNHCR's government contributions in 2024, 55.2% of IOM's, 52.3% of WFP's and 52.2% of UNAIDS'. Across the system the United States provided 30.6% of government contributions.
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor 2024 · Arithmetic, not forecast
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor, 2024.
Exhibit 30
US contribution trend, 2013-2024Absolute
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor, 2013–2024.
10.2%
Second contributor share
08, Procurement
$24.9B in procurement, by what was bought (2023)
Procurement by UNSPSC segment, as published in the UNGM Annual Statistical Report 2023 (Table 2). The ten largest segments account for $18.1B of the $24.9B total; $25.7B was reported for 2024.
UNSPSC = United Nations Standard Products and Services Code. A segment is its broadest level (2-digit). Figures are taken as published by UNGM and are not recomputed. Earlier versions of this page showed family, item and supplier-country matrices that could not be traced to a published UNGM table; they have been removed.
Exhibit 31
Top 10 procurement segments, 2023 ($M)UNGM ASR 2023 · Table 2
Source: UNGM Annual Statistical Report 2023.
Exhibit 32
Goods vs services, 2023UNGM ASR 2023
Source: UNGM Annual Statistical Report 2023.
◆
Largest segment: pharmaceuticals, contraceptives and vaccines, $3.5B in 2023, down 38.4% from 2022.
◆
Management and administrative services: $2.7B, the third-largest segment (up 7.2%).
◆
Services $13.1B, goods $11.8B.
Patterns
Statistical patterns across the datasets
Each pattern below comes from combining two published datasets. They describe the structure of the data; they do not attribute intent to any entity or donor.
69×
For the highest goal (SDG 2), resources tagged by SDG (expenditure, or budget where only budget is reported) are 69× those of the lowest (SDG 14); on expenditure rows only, 62×. The top three goals account for 60% of SDG expenditure; the bottom eight share 9%. The SDGs were adopted as an integrated set; expenditure tagging shows how unevenly resources are reported against them.
Source: CEB Expenditure by SDG, 2018–2024 · expenditure per entity-year, budget only where no expenditure is reported
09, Where the data is thin
What the published series can and cannot show
Where a published series stops, starts or is not comparable. These are measurable gaps between what the data could show and what it does.
?
Expenditure without a comparable functional breakdown: 43.7% of country expenditure. The CEB expenditure-by-function series starts in 2018 (incomplete in 2018-2019, complete from 2020); $290.6B (2013–2019) has no comparable humanitarian, development, peace or normative breakdown. A series break, not a reporting failure.
✕
Procurement vendor data siloed from financial flows. The donor→agency→vendor chain is untrackable from any single public source.
✕
Non-government donors far less granular. 6,132 non-government records vs 101,193 government records.
?
Only 6 of 48 UN entities independently assessed for transparency (PWYF ATI 2024). PWYF = Publish What You Fund, an independent aid-transparency watchdog.
?
Palestine under 3 names: $12.7B split across "Palestine", "Occupied Palestinian Territory", "State of Palestine".