>Ian Murray wrote:
>>
>>
>> The internal WB heretic William Easterly comes at the same problem
>> from just a slightly different angle--the neoclassical take on the
>> cumulativeness of perverse incentives/corruption-- in "The Elusive
>> Quest for Prosperity".
>>
>
>Doesn't aid 1) merely flow into the pockets of local oligarchs and
>military thugs, etc. and 2) usually come with strings forcing the money
>to be mostly used to buy u.s. products? When has the U.S. ever given aid
>that didn't either prop up corrupt regimes or aid u.s. companies or
>both?
There's all kinds of aid. Concessionary loans at below-market interest rates count as aid. So does sending food and drugs, or building water systems. Some of it is good, some of it is sinister and awful. Your 2), above, is mainly "development" loans, which often return to the First World in the form of procurement contracts. The kind of aid under debate here is more like the humane stuff than the 2) stuff, though not entirely.
If it were all so corrupt and sinister, why did the U.S. block it?
Doug