Do Aid given and Gender Inequality Index go together across countries?

Across 47 countries the link before adjusting for anything is r = -0.54, on a scale from -1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). A version that uses only each country's rank gives -0.67.

Does the link hold within countries over time, not just across countries?

Comparing each country only with itself across 1990-2023, and setting aside what happened worldwide in each year, the link is -0.244 (47 countries, 1,199 country-years). Using year-to-year changes, it is +0.055.

Does Aid given cause Gender Inequality Index?

This analysis cannot answer that. It shows only that the two go together. A link between two country measures, adjusted or not, does not show that either one changes the other. Country figures also say nothing about individual people.

Aid given vs. Gender Inequality Index

Fades after adjusting for income

Across 47 countries, Aid given and Gender Inequality Index rise and fall together at r = -0.54 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). Comparing only countries with similar income (GDP per person) shrinks it to -0.28, which could easily be chance (q = 0.23, allowing for the many pairs tested, and allowing for countries in the same region being alike). So the first figure mostly shows richer countries differing from poorer ones, not a link between these two things.

Comparing countries across the middle half of aid given, 0.134% to 0.432% of GNI, gender inequality index is better by 0.0559 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 0.032 points.

Link before adjusting (r)-0.543p = 8.1e-5 · 47 countries

After adjusting for national income-0.277p = 0.063 · likely range [-0.52, +0.01]

p, allowing for regions0.073standard error 0.102 · 4 regions

Check for luck (q)0.226across 12,497 pairs

How to read these.r runs from −1 (one goes up as the other goes down) to +1 (they rise together), and 0 means no link. Adjusting for national income means comparing countries with the same GDP per person, so differences in wealth can’t explain the link. Income is used in percentage terms, since an extra $1,000 means more to a poor country than to a rich one. p is how likely a link this strong would be if there were really none. Below 0.05 means it is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 1.1e-32 means a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then 11, so very close to zero. The likely range is where the true figure probably lies, and a range that crosses zero means the link could easily be chance. Countries in the same region tend to resemble each other, so the third figure allows for that, which gives a fairer p. The standard error is the typical size of the error in r. Finally, testing this many pairs means some will look strong by luck alone. A q below 0.05 means this link is unlikely to be one of those.

Aid given · % of GNIlink with income +0.68 · high

Gender Inequality Index · index, 0 to 1link with income -0.89 · proxy

Both of these rise and fall closely with national income, so a strong link between them before adjusting was close to certain. Read the adjusted figure, not the first one.

“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.

Every country as a dot

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

Method	r	p	Countries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted	-0.543	8.1e-5	47
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted	-0.666	3.3e-7	47
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income	-0.277	0.063	47
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income	-0.414	0.004	47

The rank version uses only each country’s place in line, from lowest to highest, so a few extreme countries count for less. The adjusted and unadjusted versions use the same 47 countries: those that report both measures and GDP per person. So the gap between them comes from the adjustment, not from a change in which countries are counted. Drop in the size of r after adjusting: +0.266 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.348 (without TUR) to -0.215 (without USA). The bar above shows that range on a scale from −1 to +1, with the solid line at the full result. The single country that moves r most: TUR (-0.072).

Within each region

Countries are not separate, unrelated cases, and neighbors share a lot. A link that holds inside each region is far more believable than one that shows up only when comparing regions.

	n	r
Europe & Central Asia	34	-0.19

By income third

If the link shows up only in the richest third of countries, it is a feature of rich countries, not a general pattern.

	n	r
Poorest third	16	+0.10
Middle third	15	-0.66
Richest third	16	-0.52

By largest religious group

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

	n	r
Christians	33	-0.49

Without outliers (countries far outside the middle half of countries on either measure, by more than one and a half times the width of that middle half): r = -0.340 after dropping 2 countries.

Two series, one country

Both measures over the years for one country you pick. The two charts are stacked so they share only the years along the bottom.

Loading…

Over time, within countries

Everything above compares countries with each other at one moment. This section compares each country only with itself over 34years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

Within countries over time, there is no link that is clearly more than chance (r = -0.244, comparing each country only with itself over the years, and each year only with the same year elsewhere). Whatever the cross-country picture shows, countries whose aid given moved did not tend to see their gender inequality index move with it.

Across countries (adjusted)-0.277for comparison

Within countries-0.375each country vs itself

…and vs the same year elsewhere-0.244q = 0.396 · 47 countries

Year-on-year changes+0.055q = 0.587

1,199 country-years (one country in one year), 47 countries, 1990–2023, about 26 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 20% for Aid given, 28% for Gender Inequality Index. The margins of error allow for each country appearing many times, and for each year’s value being close to the year before.

Year-to-year changes are a cautious test, not a final answer. Looking only at changes from one year to the next removes each country’s own trends. But it also makes measurement mistakes louder, which pulls the results toward zero. A near-zero result here is weak evidence of no link, not proof.

With one measure years behind the other

Same year (lag 0): -0.244. A peak away from zero does not show which comes first. These series change slowly — this year’s value is close to last year’s. That makes the curve smooth and nearly symmetric, whatever produced the data. Even a sharp peak at one lag (a gap of some years) would not prove that one measure changes the other.

The largest value on this curve (-0.30 at lag +4) is higher than the same-year one by 0.06. That gap is not a finding. It is the largest of 21 closely related estimates, and picking the biggest of many tests always makes it look bigger. That is exactly why nothing on this site is ranked or chosen by lag.

The data

	% of GNI	index, 0 to 1	Years
Norway NOR	1.03%	0.004	2025, 2023
Luxembourg LUX	0.993%	0.044	2025, 2023
Sweden SWE	0.849%	0.007	2025, 2023
Denmark DNK	0.723%	0.003	2025, 2023
United Arab Emirates ARE	0.613%	0.04	2025, 2023
Netherlands NLD	0.58%	0.013	2025, 2023
Germany DEU	0.558%	0.057	2025, 2023
Turkiye TUR	0.501%	0.227	2025, 2023
Switzerland CHE	0.46%	0.01	2025, 2023
Saudi Arabia SAU	0.447%	0.228	2024, 2023
Finland FIN	0.443%	0.021	2025, 2023
Qatar QAT	0.432%	0.195	2025, 2023
United Kingdom GBR	0.432%	0.083	2025, 2023
Ireland IRL	0.425%	0.054	2025, 2023
France FRA	0.423%	0.034	2025, 2023

OECD databases as named on each indicator: PISA, Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), Income Distribution Database, Development Assistance Committee statistics, Family Database, Government at a Glance, Corporate Tax Statistics, employment and environment statistics
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2025

Sources

Aid given

Official development assistance given

OECD · via Our World in Data · CC BY 4.0 (OECD terms and conditions) · updated annual, except the snapshots noted per indicator

Donor countries only, about fifty. Countries that receive aid do not appear, so any link with this is a link among rich countries. No "better" direction is set.

Gender Inequality Index

United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report Office · via Our World in Data · CC BY 3.0 IGO · updated annual

Built from deaths in childbirth, births to teenagers, seats in parliament, secondary schooling, and the share of women and men in the workforce. Five of those inputs are on the site and flagged. It is kept out of the gender score, for the same reason the HDI is kept out of the economy score.

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2020–2025. To adjust for income, each measure is first predicted from GDP per person (in percentage terms, on a log scale) with a straight-line fit. Only what is left over is then compared. This is called a partial correlation. The line is drawn the standard way (ordinary least squares), which picks the line that comes closest to all the countries at once. The error margins allow for countries in the same region resembling each other, using 4 World Bank regions. The q-value corrects for testing all 12,497 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Aid given and Gender Inequality Index

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Aid given changes Gender Inequality Index, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.