I wouldn't say that corruption is a consequence of US spending, though large amounts of externally sourced money do increase the opportunities for corruption.Originally Posted by Steve the Planner
I was thinking more of the reality that economic development requires change, and change often threatens the position, prosperity, and even the survival of local and national elites. These elites may not openly oppose development efforts, especially if they have uses for the incoming funds, but they are likely to actively manipulate the process to ensure that their interests are not compromised, which often also ensures that the aims of the funding agency are not met. We need to be able to recognize divergent goals, and in cases where the interests of the local elite are completely incompatible with development goals it may be better to simply put the money somewhere else, where it might have some chance of accomplishing something.
Unfortunately it's often more important to be able to say we sent x hundred million to a certain utterly miserable place than to be able to point out what that money actually accomplished.
We don't, unless it's our own corruption. We can't cure anyone else's.
Bookmarks