Hey Marc !
To quote a real smart guy herein....Yepper !

The technical term for this is "tied aid", something that Canada has done for a long time. Honestly, I think it's a bad policy on the whole for a number of reasons.

1. It encourages a "dependency" mentality in the host country.
2. It doesn't encourage the local economy. Since the late 1970's, there has been a fairly major move in development agencies that is based on the idea of teaching a person to fish rather than giving them a fish (you know the old adage...). After all, I'd rather that these countries be able to feed themselves....
3. It makes economic sense for "us". Hey, if we are going to feed 50k people, would you rather spend $5,000,000 or $1,000,000? Personally, I'd rather have my charity money (and tax dollars) going directly to people who need it in the most efficient way (it's why I look at admin charges and won't support any charity tha doesn't have open books).
Yes, I agree that this entire scenario does little more that encourage dependency. They will never then, ever get off their dead behinds and do something.

They recently received computers and all kinds of 'stuff' to boost tourism ????? I give up, obviously USAID thought that would 'plug a hole'.

The Peace Corps supposedly teach them how to raise fish, do we now need to teach them how to eat said ?

I also have a real hard time with that term 'charity' tied to administrative costs. Perhaps why I like keeping the whole banana At least I would have some idea where all that admin cash is going.

I'm not totally against 'buying it there', but if there is a bumper crop, why not give some to their own folks ? Why do we have to buy their Sierra, and give it away (just down the street)

Regards, Stan