Cartablanca Labs · Economic Studies Division · 2026

What $777 billion
buys — and who decides.

A forensic analysis of 14 years of UN system financial flows. Every figure from primary public sources. Eight findings the architecture of multilateralism would prefer remained technical.

Read
01
The Money

The system grew 72%. The agencies' freedom shrank.

Since 2011, UN system revenue has grown from $39.6 billion to $68.3 billion — a 72% increase in 14 years. But this headline masks a structural inversion: the agencies that manage global crises control an ever-smaller fraction of their own budgets.

"Less than 8 cents of every dollar entering the UN system is freely allocable. The other 92 cents arrives pre-spent — assigned by donors to specific projects before the agencies see it."

Source: CEB Financial Statistics 2024 · Core funding: $5.3B of $68.3B

Revenue composition, 2011–2024
The red tide of earmarked funding rising year on year
Source: UN CEB Financial Statistics · unsceb.org/data-download
Core vs Earmarked — the squeeze
Two lines moving in opposite directions since 2011
Source: UN CEB Financial Statistics 2011–2024

The technical term is earmarking. The practical consequence is that agencies managing food crises, disease outbreaks, and displacement cannot move money between priorities without donor approval. WFP lost $5.3 billion in a single year (2022→2023) when crisis-driven earmarked funding receded. No reserve. No buffer. No plan B.

02
Finding

The geometry of neglect.

If UN expenditure followed poverty — if the system allocated resources proportionally to need — the chart below would show a straight diagonal line. It doesn't. What it shows is that the deciding variable is not poverty rates. It is media visibility.

Poverty rate vs UN spend per person in extreme poverty (2024)
Each bubble = one country. Size = total UN expenditure. Colour = conflict status. A proportional system would cluster along the diagonal.
Conflict-affected
Non-conflict recipient
Sources: CEB Financial Statistics 2024 · World Bank Poverty & Inequality Platform 2023

"Nigeria has 87 million people living below $2.15/day. The UN system spends $8 per poor Nigerian per year. Lebanon — with fewer people in extreme poverty — receives $480. The 60× differential has no poverty-based explanation."

Source: CEB Financial Statistics 2024 · World Bank 2023 · Cartablanca Labs calculation

The outliers are not random. Lebanon, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic receive disproportionate UN attention. Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Pakistan — home to hundreds of millions in poverty — receive comparatively little. The UN system responds to crises that make Western news cycles. This is observable. This is not a value judgment. It is a pattern in the data.

03
Eye-Opener

For every dollar Denmark gives, it gets $3.42 back.

The UN system procured $24.9 billion in goods and services in 2023. The distribution of these contracts does not follow the distribution of need. It follows the geography of industrial capacity — which is to say, it largely flows back to wealthy donor nations.

Contribution vs procurement return — who gives, who gets back (2023)
Bubbles above the diagonal line get back more than they give. Bubbles below give more than they get. Size = total procurement received.
Sources: UNGM Annual Statistical Report 2023 · CEB Revenue by Government Donor 2023

"Denmark contributes $597M and receives $2,040M in contracts. Japan contributes $2,482M and receives $380M. The system redistributes wealth — but not always toward the poor."

Source: UNGM ASR 2023 · CEB 2023

"Kenya contributes $18M and receives $720M in procurement. India contributes $221M and receives $1,120M. Host-country sourcing works — for some."

Source: UNGM ASR 2023 · CEB 2023

04
Structural Risk

One country. One third of the system.

The United States contributed $14.3 billion to the UN system in 2024 — 30.6% of all government contributions. In the same year, no other single government exceeded 10.2%. This is not burden-sharing. This is structural dependency operating under a multilateral label.

If US contributions were removed — exposure by entity (2024 data)
The percentage of each entity's 2024 revenue that was US-sourced. Arithmetic, not scenario. Not a policy position.
Source: CEB Revenue by Government Donor 2024 · CEB Revenue 2024 · Cartablanca Labs calculation

"UNAIDS would lose 49.1% of its budget. WFP: 42.8%. UNHCR: 43.1%. These are not abstract percentages — they are the operational capacity of agencies managing HIV responses, food crises, and refugee protection for hundreds of millions of people."

Source: CEB Financial Statistics 2024 · Cartablanca Labs calculation · No political inference made or intended

05
Alarms

Eight numbers that should concern anyone who works with public data.

The following findings emerge directly from primary public datasets. Each carries a primary source. Each is reproducible. None requires interpretation beyond the arithmetic.

Methodology: All figures computed from UN CEB Financial Statistics (2011–2024), UNGM Annual Statistical Report (2023), CEB HR Statistics (2017–2024), and World Bank Open Data (2023). No data has been estimated or imputed. Gaps in source data are reported as gaps, not filled. Full methodology and reproducible scripts available at the full observatory. This analysis does not infer intent, attribute causation, or make policy recommendations.
About

Cartablanca Labs is an independent economic research unit. tracking UN system financial flows. Built entirely on primary public data. Published under the Cartablanca Labs Economic Studies Division. All primary sources are publicly available and cited inline.

Sources
Explore
This observatory reports what is published. It measures published data against declared methodology. It flags mandated-but-missing disclosures. It does not infer intent. The dependency scenario (Chapter 4) is arithmetic applied to 2024 CEB data — not a political position. · Data accessed June 2026 · All figures reproducible from primary public sources.