UNESCO's latest figures reveal that 113 countries worldwide are spending more money on debt repayment than on education. Their combined population reaches 6.1 billion.
In low-income countries, debt service reaches about four times education spending. In the 18 most heavily indebted nations, governments are transferring at least five dollars to creditors for every dollar spent on education.
According to World Bank data, developing countries paid external creditors $741 billion more in principal and interest than the new financing they received in the 2022-2024 period. This was recorded as the largest net debt outflow in 50 years. In 2024 alone, interest payments by low- and middle-income countries hit a record $415 billion.
Creditors first, children second
The figures lay bare the hierarchy imposed by the international financial system. Creditors hold enforceable claims on public revenues, while children's right to education remains confined to declarations, development goals and promises. When the two clash, creditors collect their dues first.
Overcrowded classrooms, crumbling school buildings, teacher shortages, unaffordable school fees and children dropping out are among the consequences of this choice. Yet these realities are often framed as a "financing gap" or "governance failure," as if governments had willingly decided to neglect their schools.
Debt-education swaps bring limited relief
In response to this picture, UNESCO recommends expanding debt-education swap programs. Under this mechanism, a creditor cancels or restructures a portion of a country's debt; in return, the government invests in agreed education programs.
Concrete gains do exist. Thanks to an agreement signed with France in 2023, Côte d'Ivoire secured financing for more than 30 schools in areas with poor access to services. Germany's program with Egypt supported school meals and essential services, while an earlier Spain-Peru partnership brought education projects to vulnerable regions.
However, the article stresses that these programs cannot solve the larger debt crisis. Debt swaps typically cover only a small fraction of a country's debt; they are negotiated selectively, depend on creditor consent, and can add new layers of external oversight over public spending. Crucially, the principle that creditors are entitled to repayment unless they voluntarily forgo it remains untouched.
As aid shrinks, debt pressure mounts
The decline in education aid makes the situation even more difficult. UNESCO projects that international education aid could fall by up to 30 percent between 2023 and 2027. Indebted countries are thus caught in a squeeze: aid is being withdrawn while debt payments continue.
Advice for developing countries to "generate more domestic resources" also falls short. While progressive taxation and reducing corruption are important, the additional revenues generated cannot transform education systems when they get swallowed by high-interest debt or inflated repayments due to currency depreciation.
Education budgets consist largely of recurring expenditures like teacher salaries. When governments are instructed to freeze public sector wages, declarations by international institutions that education is a priority are not enough to close the teacher gap or expand access.
Call for comprehensive debt restructuring
The article states that a more serious response must begin with large-scale debt cancellation for countries in distress, automatic suspension of payments during economic and climate emergencies, far cheaper concessional financing, and a fair multilateral mechanism for sovereign debt restructuring.
Currently, debt negotiations are fragmented among private creditors, bilateral lenders and international institutions. Indebted governments are forced to bargain with powerful financial actors while trying not to be penalized for seeking relief.
The article argues that a binding sovereign debt framework under the United Nations could set common rules, compel both borrowers and lenders to act responsibly, and prevent holdout creditors from blocking restructuring. It also states that such a framework could center social rights in assessments of how much a country can realistically repay.
The opinion piece stresses the need to move toward the idea that debt repayment cannot come at any human cost. It calls for judging whether a debt is sustainable by determining whether servicing it requires dismantling the institutions on which a society's future depends.
Maria Nica / Editor
