There are three main reasons behind the commonly-held (and demonstrably false) belief that aid is ineffective and wasteful.
The first, and most obvious, is that people want a reason not to give money abroad. Simply saying 'we don't want to give away our money' understandably sounds rather harsh (although it would be much more honest if these people just admitted as such). So people like to jump on any instance of corruption, ineffectiveness or simple mismanagement (admittedly all these three occur far more often than they should, as we will see) to excuse being stingy with aid.
The second reason is down to the media's distorting nature. The wonderful achievements that have been made are ignored and the failures are plastered over the front pages. Now I'm not saying that the media should be rosy about what has been achieved. Enough has not been achieved while there are still people going hungry and people dying of curable diseases. However, it would be helpful if, when new statistics are published that are positive, these were also given press coverage. For example, in its Millennium Development Goals report from last year, the UN announced that 12,000 fewer children are dying each day compared with 1990.
The biggest issue is the most difficult one to address: in many instances, aid is ineffective. This is mostly a result not of corrupt leaders in developing countries (although these do exist) but of incorrect allocations and uses by donors. The receiver countries have historically been chosen by donors not based on where need is greatest, but on where is deemed most beneficial to the donor country concerned - as if aid should be about individual self-interest rather than the collective good. Before 1990 this meant aid directed at dictatorships in Africa and Latin America who were seen as stalwarts against communism. More recently it has meant aid directed at countries that could be hotspots for terrorism - India and Pakistan for example - with the hope of winning over the 'hearts and minds' of the local people to the Western way. Always it has meant donating where there is deemed an economic or trade advantage.
Furthermore, aid has always been about foreign 'experts' teaching local people what to do based on what they have done elsewhere or theories they have studied. It very rarely involves a proper consultation with the genuine needs of the poor on a local level.
Aid has already achieved a lot for individuals and communities worldwide - and the statistics in the UN MDGs report from 2011 speak for themselves. It could achieve an awful lot more if it shed donor interests and priorities, adapted to local conditions and knowledge, and took on the simultaneous goals of local and global development.
The first, and most obvious, is that people want a reason not to give money abroad. Simply saying 'we don't want to give away our money' understandably sounds rather harsh (although it would be much more honest if these people just admitted as such). So people like to jump on any instance of corruption, ineffectiveness or simple mismanagement (admittedly all these three occur far more often than they should, as we will see) to excuse being stingy with aid.
The second reason is down to the media's distorting nature. The wonderful achievements that have been made are ignored and the failures are plastered over the front pages. Now I'm not saying that the media should be rosy about what has been achieved. Enough has not been achieved while there are still people going hungry and people dying of curable diseases. However, it would be helpful if, when new statistics are published that are positive, these were also given press coverage. For example, in its Millennium Development Goals report from last year, the UN announced that 12,000 fewer children are dying each day compared with 1990.
The biggest issue is the most difficult one to address: in many instances, aid is ineffective. This is mostly a result not of corrupt leaders in developing countries (although these do exist) but of incorrect allocations and uses by donors. The receiver countries have historically been chosen by donors not based on where need is greatest, but on where is deemed most beneficial to the donor country concerned - as if aid should be about individual self-interest rather than the collective good. Before 1990 this meant aid directed at dictatorships in Africa and Latin America who were seen as stalwarts against communism. More recently it has meant aid directed at countries that could be hotspots for terrorism - India and Pakistan for example - with the hope of winning over the 'hearts and minds' of the local people to the Western way. Always it has meant donating where there is deemed an economic or trade advantage.
Furthermore, aid has always been about foreign 'experts' teaching local people what to do based on what they have done elsewhere or theories they have studied. It very rarely involves a proper consultation with the genuine needs of the poor on a local level.
Aid has already achieved a lot for individuals and communities worldwide - and the statistics in the UN MDGs report from 2011 speak for themselves. It could achieve an awful lot more if it shed donor interests and priorities, adapted to local conditions and knowledge, and took on the simultaneous goals of local and global development.
