Although data on domestic philanthropy is limited, Mexico stands out as one of the countries with a very active domestic philanthropic sector, according to the OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey (OECD, 2021[1]). Between 2020 and 2023, the 328 largest domestic philanthropic foundations with available data contributed an estimated USD 3.4 billion in total, averaging USD 859 million in annual disbursements. This chapter examines their giving in Mexico, providing insights into the concentration of funding as well as sectoral and geographical allocations.
Private Philanthropy for Development in Mexico
Domestic philanthropy in Mexico is concentrated among a few large organisations
As in most other emerging economies, domestic philanthropy is concentrated among a small number of large funders (OECD, 2021[1]). The top 10 funders accounted for almost half of the philanthropic funding disbursed in Mexico between 2020 and 2023 (Figure 2.1). A total of 36 out of the 61 domestic philanthropic foundations were established in the 1990s and 2000s by private companies. Notable exceptions are the Fundación Carlos Slim and the Fundación Gonzalo Río Arronte, both founded by ultra-high-net-worth individuals. Fundación Carlos Slim dominates the philanthropic landscape in Mexico, with disbursements of over USD 670 million between 2020 and 2023. Established in 1986, the foundation's activities cover a wide range of areas, from education and health to migration, justice, culture and sport (Fundación Carlos Slim, n.d.[2]).
Domestic philanthropic disbursements, 2020-23 by providers
Note: To avoid double counting, any financial flows that were directed to other organisations in the sample were excluded.
Source: OECD financial survey and SAT database.
An analysis of organisations that consistently reported data from 2020 to 2023 (Figure 2.2) reveals a downward trend in total disbursements over the period. Disbursements fell for two consecutive years from over USD 1 billion in 2020 to USD 754 million in 2021 and USD 716 million in 2022 before experiencing a modest recovery to USD 825 million in 2023.
Domestic philanthropic disbursements, 2020‑23 by year
Source: OECD financial survey and SAT database.
This overall decline occurred despite nearly 60% of the foundations in the sample increasing their contributions over the same period. However, the increases occurred among smaller foundations, while a limited number of large donors significantly reduced their disbursements. In particular, Fundación Carlos Slim reduced its funding by around half between 2020 and 2023.
Philanthropic funding in Mexico was concentrated in a small number of social sectors
Between 2020 and 2023, the three largest sectors, namely, other social infrastructure and services,1 health and education, received over USD 2.4 billion in total, representing nearly three-quarters of all domestic philanthropic disbursements, as shown in Figure 2.3.The largest share of funding, USD 1 billion, supported activities in other social infrastructure and services, followed by USD 798 million for health and USD 687 million for education. Within these sectors, funding was largely concentrated in social protection, medical services and general education. In contrast, sectors such as water and sanitation, general environment protection and reproductive health received significantly lower levels of support.
Domestic philanthropic disbursements, 2020‑23 by sectors
Note: Using a text-based classification tool, most of the purpose codes were successfully extracted from the project description, allowing the majority of the sample to be used for the sectorial analysis
Source: OECD financial survey and SAT database.
Within the largest-funded sector – other social infrastructure and services – nearly 80% of philanthropic funding was allocated to social protection, which received USD 779 million between 2020 and 2023, as shown in (Figure 2.4). Smaller amounts supported employment creation, which received USD 92 million, low-cost housing with USD 34 million and a range of other basic services including cultural activities and multisector aid. The distribution suggests that philanthropic actors played a concentrated role in supporting income stability and essential services for vulnerable populations.
Subsector decomposition of the top sector, 2020‑23
Source: OECD financial survey and SAT database.
Annual disbursements to the top three sectors followed a broadly stable pattern between 2020 and 2022, with a notable increase in funding to other social infrastructure and services in 2023, as shown in (Figure 2.5). Health received the highest level of support in 2020 but declined in subsequent years, while education funding rose modestly. Despite these shifts, philanthropic support remained concentrated in the same three sectors throughout the period, with other social infrastructure and services accounting for nearly half of the total disbursements to these sectors in 2023.
Disbursements toward the top three sectors, 2020‑23 by year
Source: OECD financial survey and SAT database.
Philanthropic funding priorities varied considerably across Mexican states, as shown in Figure 2.6. Health was the top-funded sector in 19 states, followed by other social infrastructure and services in 11 states. Despite their national relevance (see above), the limited prioritisation of education across Mexican states indicates a disconnect between its national significance and subnational philanthropic strategies. This distribution underscores the widespread prioritisation of health across much of the country but reveals a more fragmented approach to other sectors. Mexico is the first emerging economy analysed by the OECD Centre on Philanthropy where education is not the leading sector supported by domestic philanthropic funding.
Top sector by disbursements, 2020‑23 by state
Note: While the “Other social infrastructure and services” sector receives the highest level of funding overall, the health sector is the top-funded sector in almost twice the number of states.
Source: OECD financial survey and SAT database.
At the subsector level, funding patterns were more fragmented and locally differentiated, as shown in Figure 2.7. Social protection was the most common top-funded subsector, leading in ten states. Medical services and employment creation were each prioritised in five states while food assistance and democratic participation led in three states each. This variation contrasts with national-level funding patterns, where a small number of sectors dominated overall disbursements. The distribution suggests that foundations tailored their strategies to address specific vulnerabilities and institutional gaps at the subnational level. This alignment with local needs and priorities reflects core principles of locally led development (LLD) whereby decision-making and resource allocation are shaped by actors with direct knowledge of community contexts.
Top subsector by sum of disbursements, 2020‑23 by state
Note: Purpose codes are extracted via text-based categorisation tool to obtain the most detailed level of sector classification. Classification available at Development finance statistics: Resources for reporting. Mexico is composed of 32 federal entities, including 31 states and Mexico City (OECD, 2024[3]).
Source: OECD financial survey and SAT database.
Identifying the sectoral allocation of philanthropic funding in Mexico is challenging. Only a few organisations reported detailed sectoral information through the OECD financial survey and the SAT database lacks standardised fields on the sectoral destination of financial flows. Nevertheless, the SAT database includes a project title or description for each registered transaction (referred to as Concepto), along with a field called Sector beneficiado. In practice, many organisations use the latter field to indicate the demographic target group (e.g. “youth”) rather than the sector (e.g. “health”).
The OECD, with the financial support of the European Commission, developed a text-based classification tool to assign sector-specific purpose codes to individual transactions. This was applied to the SAT database to overcome the absence of standardised sector-specific information. Specifically, the OECD used the supervised machine learning algorithm ModernBERT (Modern Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) to analyse text from both the project title/description and the reported beneficiary. The model was pre-trained on historical data from the OECD Private Philanthropy for Development dataset (2013‑2019). To improve accuracy, project descriptions were translated from Spanish to English using Google Translate prior to classification. The model performed strongly (achieving an F1 micro score of 0.80 on the validation set) and all assigned purpose codes were subsequently reviewed and corrected manually where necessary.
Funding is highly concentrated in urban areas
The geographical distribution of domestic philanthropic funding in Mexico reflects patterns seen in other emerging economies, such as the People’s Republic of China, Colombia, and India (OECD, 2023[4]; OECD, 2021[5]; OECD, 2019[6]). Funding is highly concentrated in a few urban and densely populated regions. Between 2020 and 2023, Mexico City received USD 780 million – the largest amount nationwide (Figure 2.8). This equals nearly USD 90 per capita, far exceeding allocations in other regions ranging from USD 17 per capita (Sinaloa) to USD 42 per capita (Nuevo León). The large inflow may be linked to the concentration of foundations headquartered in Mexico City. A similar pattern is observed in Nuevo León, one of Mexico’s wealthiest states by GDP per capita. This state receives the second-largest amount of funding per capita. Several major funders, such as Fundación Femsa, are based in Monterrey – the state capital – and primarily direct their support to the surrounding metropolitan area.
Estimated philanthropic funding per capita, by state
Note: Caution is advised as nearly one-third of total domestic funding cannot be allocated by state due to lack of geographic focus or missing data.
Source: OECD financial survey and SAT database.
Domestic philanthropic funding does not prioritise the poorest regions
Poverty levels appear to play a limited role in the allocation of philanthropic resources. Several Mexican states with high poverty incidence but lower population density – such as Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca – receive only average levels of support, both in total and per capita. This pattern is further confirmed by more granular data at the municipal level, which suggests that philanthropic resources are not systematically directed to areas with the highest poverty rates. As illustrated in Figure 2.9, there is a slightly negative relationship between poverty incidence – measured by the Multidimensional Poverty Index (CONEVAL, n.d.[7]) – and per capita funding. This suggests that, on average, municipalities with higher poverty levels tend to receive less philanthropic support.
Scatterplot to capture correlation between multi-dimensional poverty and estimated funding per capita, 2020‑23
Note: Municipalities that received over USD 50 per capita between 2020 and 2023 are not shown in the figure.
Source: SAT database and (CONEVAL, n.d.[7])
The OECD organisational survey offers valuable insights into how philanthropic actors in Mexico operate, their networks and the key challenges they encounter. The complete list of the 62 participating organisations is provided in Annex A.
The survey respondents reflect the diversity of the philanthropic sector
The organisations responding to the survey illustrate the diversity of the philanthropic sector in Mexico. Mixed foundations – those that both implement activities and provide grants to other entities – constituted around 40% of the sample (Figure 2.10). Other respondents were intermediary organisations (23%), purely implementing foundations (31%) and a limited number of grant-making-only entities (6%).
Self-assessed mode of operation
Note: Answer to the question: “Which role best describes your organisation?”. Organisations could choose one option.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Notably, eight implementing organisations without their own financial resources and 14 intermediary organisations completed the questionnaire even though due to the lack of their own private resources they do not strictly meet the study's inclusion criteria. To provide an understanding of organisational strategies and challenges across the broader philanthropic landscape in Mexico, their responses are included in the analysis.2 Besides these organisational types, numerous companies contribute to Mexico’s development through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, which are not covered by this study (see Box 2.2).
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Mexico has evolved from its philanthropic roots into a more structured and business-aligned practice. Traditionally focused on charitable donations and community support, CSR is increasingly being integrated into corporate strategies, particularly among large firms responding to shifting stakeholders’ expectations and global sustainability standards.
CSR in Mexico commonly focuses on education, environmental sustainability and community development (Lozano, Ehrlich and Leal, 2005[8]). Companies reported that CSR helps improve competitiveness, foster innovation and build trust with consumers, particularly when addressing persistent social or environmental challenges (AMN, 2023[9]). The growing adoption of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks has further encouraged firms to align CSR initiatives with measurable sustainability outcomes, including participation in voluntary reporting indices such as the Mexican Stock Exchange Sustainability Index (ICLG, 2025[10]).
Cemex, one of Mexico’s largest multinationals, illustrates a strategic approach to CSR. Rather than operating through a separate foundation, the company embeds social objectives directly into its operations. Its flagship programme “Patrimonio Hoy” supports low-income families in improving their homes through savings schemes, technical advice and access to construction materials (Cemex, 2023[11]). Other initiatives focus on vocational training and low-carbon construction, reflecting a growing emphasis on climate goals and inclusive infrastructure. The company’s ability to mobilise supply chains, technical expertise and local partnerships has also allowed it to support disaster recovery and resilience planning, complementing public services (Cemex, 2023[12]).
In addition to diversity in organisational type, the survey respondents also differ significantly in terms of size and experience. While most organisations are medium-sized – employing between 10 and 99 staff members – 10 organisations reported having more than 100 employees and two employ over 500 (Figure 2.11). Most organisations were established in the 1990s or later, reflecting the broader national trend of expansion and institutionalisation within the philanthropic sector in the late 1980s (Figure 2.12). A notable outlier is Fundación Nacional Monte de Piedad, founded in 1775, making it one of Mexico’s oldest philanthropic institutions. Originally established to offer low-interest loans and curb abusive lending practices, it continues to advance its social mission through financial services and sustained support for civil society organisations. Unlike most foundations, it operates through a self-sustaining model in which revenues from its national network of low interest pawn loan services are used to finance grants and partnerships with civil society organisations, eliminating the need for external fundraising (Nacional Monte de Piedad, 2023[13]).
Self-reported staff size in 2022
Note: Answer to the question: “How many persons worked part-time or full-time in the organisation in each of the following periods?”. The graph shows aggregated results for the year 2022.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Year of first legal establishment
Note: Answer to the question: “In what year was the organisation first legally constituted?”.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
While the use of financial instruments is limited, Mexican organisations provide a range of non-financial support
There is a growing recognition of the potential for philanthropic actors to engage in more diversified and strategic funding that goes beyond traditional grant-making to enhance the effectiveness of their partnerships and catalyse additional sources of commercial finance. This approach involves adapting financial instruments to better match the specific needs and capacities of partner organisations (OECD, 2021[1]).
Despite this potential, private philanthropic engagement in Mexico remains largely conservative in its deployment of capital. Among the organisations surveyed, the vast majority provide in-kind and cash donations (Figure 2.13). Around one-third of the sample also match grants and prizes or awards. However, the adoption of more complex innovative finance mechanisms remains extremely limited: only one organisation in the sample reported offering loans and none provide guarantees.
Note: Answers to the question “What kind of financial support does your organisation provide to its beneficiaries?”. Organisations could choose multiple options.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Beyond financial contributions, respondents reported delivering a range of non-financial support initiatives for their grantees (Figure 2.14). Support for monitoring and evaluation was the most common, cited by nearly a third of organisations. Access to donor networks, theory of change development and administrative capacity strengthening were also frequently reported by around a quarter of respondents. Fewer organisations offered support with strategic fundraising or communication matters. In addition, 29 out of 62 organisations reported providing “other” forms of non-financial support. These include training and education (e.g. skills development, entrepreneurship and school programmes); psychosocial and emotional support (e.g. counselling, recreational activities and conflict resolution); organisational and legal support (e.g. project monitoring, CSR training and legal guidance); infrastructure and material aid (e.g. study rooms and donated equipment) and community development focused on grassroots leadership, holistic learning and value chains.
Note: Answers to the question “What kind of non-financial support does your organisation provide to its beneficiaries?”. Organisations could choose multiple options.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Most respondents target youth and people experiencing poverty
Most respondents allocate their resources to several demographic groups, with young people and people experiencing poverty emerging as key target groups (Figure 2.15). About two-thirds of respondents say they support children and young people, and over half direct their funding to people experiencing poverty. In contrast, older people receive comparatively little attention, with less than one in three respondents identifying them as a priority group. Ethnicity and gender appear to play a more limited role in the selection of beneficiaries as only about a third of respondents reported targeting on the basis of these characteristics. Less than a third of respondents support indigenous populations and while women are slightly more likely to be supported than men, gender targeting remains relatively rare across the sample.
Note: Organisations were asked to identify their targeted demographics. Organisations could choose multiple options.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Respondents reported working collaboratively
Co-financing is a common practice among philanthropic organisations in Mexico. Organisations fund joint initiatives for several reasons, from scaling up a particular programme to pooling funds to tackle an issue that a single funder cannot address on its own (OECD, 2021[1]). Most of the survey respondents (35 organisations out of 62, or 57%) co-financed at least one project with another organisation between 2016 and 2022. Those that collaborate have an established network, with the majority participating in more than five joint initiatives. Interestingly, there is no correlation between the size of an organisation in terms of their funding and the number of collaborations: both large and small respondents reported having a similar number of partners (see Figure 2.16).
Note: Based on responses from 62 organisations that voluntarily reported whether they co-funded operations. Each node represents a philanthropic organisation and each link represents a connection to another organisation, which may be another private funder or other partners, including governments and implementing organisations. Large organisations are the ten largest funders that completed the organisational survey. Unconnected nodes represent organisations that do not co-fund.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
When asked about barriers to co-financing, both respondents who are part of a collaborative and those who are not cite similar barriers. Around a third of respondents face difficulties in finding partners with aligned objectives, reflecting a wider lack of awareness and transparency about philanthropic priorities. A quarter of the surveyed organisations mentioned the resource burden (time, financial and human resources) of co‑ordinating resources across multiple organisations as a deterrent (Figure 2.17).
Note: Answer to the question: “What are the main obstacles your organisation has encountered to co-financing activities?” Organisations could choose multiple options.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Beyond co-financing projects, respondents engage a range of stakeholders in the design and implementation of their projects – albeit to varying extents (Figure 2.18). Participatory approaches are common among organisations, with most respondents (41 organisations out of 553 that answered the question, or 75%) reporting that they always involve beneficiaries throughout the design and implementation phases of their projects. Collaboration with other grant makers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is also relatively widespread, with approximately three-quarters of respondents indicating frequent or consistent engagement with these actors. In contrast, co‑operation with public institutions – particularly at the federal level – remains limited. More than two-thirds of respondents reported that they rarely or never engage with federal government bodies or other governmental agencies in the design and implementation of their projects.
Note: Answer to the question: “To what extent does your organisation involve the following actors in the design or implementation of a project?” Organisations could choose one frequency per stakeholder.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
When asked how collaboration between organisations and other development actors could be improved, over two-thirds of respondents identified more transparency as a very important factor while the remainder considered it to be important. Similarly, almost all respondents viewed reducing bureaucratic barriers as either very important or important. Notably, these two factors were considered more important than other measures, such as enhancing tax incentives or setting up dialogue platforms (Figure 2.19).
Note: Answer to the question: "How can collaboration between organisations and other development actors (governments, grantees, NGOs, etc.) be improved?" Organisations could choose one level of importance per item.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Information sharing remains limited despite increasing use of monitoring and evaluation tools
Transparency is not yet the norm in the Mexican philanthropic sector (Figure 2.20). While nearly two-thirds of respondents reported publishing annual reports or organisational performance evaluations, the depth and quality of disclosed information vary considerably. Fewer than half of the surveyed organisations publish audited financial statements and an even smaller share disclose their grant-making strategies, information on grant processes and strategic plans. Notably, six organisations reported that they do not publicly share any of these types of information.
Despite the absence of a binding reporting obligation from the government, transparency is encouraged through initiatives such as the Institutionality and Transparency Accreditation of the Mexican Center for Philanthropy (CEMEFI), which promotes credibility and accountability in the sector (Cemefi, 2021[14]). In parallel, the General Transparency Law enacted in 2015 requires organisations receiving public funds to disclose relevant information. However, implementation and enforcement remain uneven across states (Garcia, 2020[15]). As a result, the regular publication of financial data and grant-level information remains limited.
Note: Answer to the question: "What information about your organisation is available on your website or other public sources?" Organisations could choose multiple options.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Respondents reported regularly monitoring and evaluating their programmes, although with variations in complexity of the method employed (Figure 2.21). Field reports, beneficiary feedback and process evaluations are the most widely implemented, used by over two-thirds of organisations for all projects, followed by needs assessments and intervention design. More technically demanding approaches, such as cost-effectiveness and impact evaluations, are used by around half and a third of organisations, respectively.
Note: Answer to the question: "Since 2019, how frequently has your organisation applied the following evaluation methods to its donations or projects?" Organisations could choose one frequency per method.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Although philanthropic evaluations can provide valuable insights to inform public policy and other actors, (OECD, 2021[1]) two-thirds of respondents said they face challenges in turning those evaluation results into meaningful influence or action (Figure 2.22). By contrast, far fewer respondents reported challenges in using evaluations to strengthen organisational strategies (21%) or share insights with partners (17%). The ability to conduct high-quality evaluations is closely linked to financial resources: almost half of respondents struggle to secure sufficient funding for evaluation activities. Larger organisations are more likely to invest in formal systems and specialised staff, enabling systematic assessment. In contrast, smaller organisations often rely on basic tools and face capacity and staffing constraints that limit sustained evaluation efforts (Cemefi, 2023[16]; Cruz Hernandez, 2024[17]).
Note: Answer to the question: “What are the most important challenges your organisation faces in terms of monitoring and evaluation?” Organisations could choose one level of difficulty per challenge.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Most respondents were affected by regulatory changes while the COVID-19 pandemic did not seem to have long-lasting effects on organisations’ operations and strategies
As outlined above, former president Obrador’s Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (Morena) administration significantly altered the regulatory framework for foundations in Mexico. Most respondents reported being impacted, though to varying degrees (Figure 2.23). Changes to the tax treatment of donations had the greatest effect as many organisations rely significantly on this income source. Most organisations were also affected by increased criteria for revoking authorised donee status, which is required to receive tax-deductible donations. To a lesser extent, they were also affected by donations being moved under the cap of other personal deductions. By contrast, the reduction of public support, such as the termination of INDESOL and the Social Co-Investment Programme, affected fewer organisations.
Note: Answer to the question: “To what extent have the following recent regulatory changes affected your organisation?” Organisations could choose one level of impact per item.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
Concurrent with these regulatory changes, Mexican organisations had to adapt to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, which wreaked havoc in the country, beginning in February 2020. The pandemic claimed the lives of more than 300 000 people (Worldometer, 2025[18]). Around a third of respondents reported both a reduction in the operational budget and mental health issues among their staff. Furthermore, nearly a quarter of respondents reduced staff size and around a sixth had to cope with deaths of staff members.
However, as shown in Figure 2.24, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on operations and strategies were largely temporary. While 29% of respondents temporarily reallocated resources to COVID‑19‑related programmes and 22% increased their annual budgets, only 14% sustained these higher spending levels. A similar share reported a permanent reduction in their budgets. The most notable long-term shift reported was the establishment of new connections between beneficiaries and donors, cited by 20% of respondents.
Note: Answer to the question: “How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected your organisation's strategy?” Organisations could choose one answer per item.
Source: OECD organisational survey.
References
[9] AMN (2023), Corporate Social Responsibility in Mexico - Why it Matters - AMN, https://amnquality.com/en/corporate-social-responsibility-importance-mexico/ (accessed on 26 March 2025).
[16] Cemefi (2023), 7 tendencias de la Filantropía y de la Sociedad Civil Organizada Contenido, http://www.cemefi.org.
[14] Cemefi (2021), Acreditacion en institucionalidad y transparencia, https://www.cemefi.org/centrodedocumentacion/11388.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2025).
[12] Cemex (2023), Future in Action - Corporate Website - Cemex, https://www.cemex.com/en/sustainability/future-in-action (accessed on 24 March 2025).
[11] Cemex (2023), Patrimonio Hoy de Cemex: 25 Años Mejorando Viviendas en México. | Cemex Mexico, https://www.cemexmexico.com/sostenibilidad/vivienda/patrimonio-hoy (accessed on 24 March 2025).
[7] CONEVAL (n.d.), “Multidimensional Measurement of poverty in Mexico: an economic wellbeing and social rights approach”, https://www.coneval.org.mx/informesPublicaciones/FolletosInstitucionales/Documents/Multidimensional-Measurement-of-poverty-in-Mexico.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2025).
[17] Cruz Hernandez, S. (2024), “Filantropía comunitaria en México: Narrativas emergentes de lo común, el territorio y la memoria”, Comuni@cción: Revista de Investigación en Comunicación y Desarrollo, Vol. 15/1, pp. 56-65, https://doi.org/10.33595/2226-1478.15.1.1019.
[2] Fundación Carlos Slim (n.d.), Quiénes somos - Fundación Carlos Slim | Fundación Carlos Slim, https://fundacioncarlosslim.org/quienes-somos/ (accessed on 9 April 2025).
[15] Garcia, A. (2020), Transparency in Mexico: An Overview of Access to Information Regulations and their Effectiveness at the Federal and State Level | Wilson Center, Wilson Center, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/transparency-mexico-overview-access-to-information-regulations-and-their-effectiveness (accessed on 10 April 2025).
[10] ICLG (2025), Environmental, Social & Governance Laws and Regulations Report 2025 Mexico, https://iclg.com/practice-areas/environmental-social-and-governance-law/mexico (accessed on 26 March 2025).
[8] Lozano, G., C. Ehrlich and L. Leal (2005), “Corporate Social Responsibility Status In Mexico”.
[13] Nacional Monte de Piedad (2023), Nacional Monte de Piedad-Inversion Social | Nacional Monte de Piedad-Inversion Social, https://inversionsocial.montepiedad.com.mx/ (accessed on 9 May 2025).
[3] OECD (2024), Development finance statistics: Resources for reporting, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/insights/data-explainers/2024/10/resources-for-reporting-development-finance-statistics.html.
[4] OECD (2023), Domestic and Cross-border Philanthropy for Development and Gender Equality in China, 2016-19, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/61050ddf-en.
[5] OECD (2021), Domestic Philanthropy for Development and Gender Equality in Colombia, https://doi.org/10.1787/2762f151-en.
[1] OECD (2021), Private Philanthropy for Development – Second Edition: Data for Action, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdf37f1e-en.
[6] OECD (2019), India’s Private Giving, Unpacking Domestic Philanthropy and Corporate Social Responsibility, https://doi.org/10.1787/4b3a0269-en.
[19] OECD (n.d.), Development finance classifications, https://development-finance-codelists.oecd.org/Codeslist.aspx (accessed on 11 June 2025).
[18] Worldometer (2025), Mexico COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/mexico/ (accessed on 14 April 2025).
← 1. The OECD DAC sector “Other Social Infrastructure and Services” (code 160) includes social protection (16010), covering pensions, welfare and support for vulnerable groups; employment creation (16020); housing policy and low-cost housing (16030, 16040); and multisector aid for basic services (16050). It also covers culture and recreation (16061), statistical capacity building (16062), narcotics control (16063), social mitigation of HIV/AIDS (16064), labour rights (16070) and social dialogue (16080) (OECD, n.d.[19]).
← 2. Their inclusion did not significantly alter the main findings.
← 3. Of the total sample of 62 foundations, 55 responded to this question. Percentages are based on these respondents.