First, totally agree that privet acts of charity and aid money aren't in the same category. But I think they both can benefit from the kind of, "what are we ok with?" analysis.

As in: I don't agree with you that"if [I] can buy US food aid in the market in Kigali, then some of the resources we used to get that food aid there were wasted and we could have had greater impact if we'd spent them in some other way." I don't necessarily disagree, but I think there is a need prove three things: 1) that there are other things that would have been done with the money, and 2) that those things would have had greater impact that individuals selling "USA" vegetable oil, and 3) that there is not benefit in individuals creating a private market in the good that is donated USA vegetable oil. I think that market might make a differences in the places where it exists. Just a hunch.

Whether or not it is a problem, really depends - in my mind - on what our assumptions and desires and needs are when we enter into that participatory process/negotiation.

Also, here's a link about the success of Brazil's CCT program: http://www.economist.com/...e/16690887?story_id=16690887

Thanks for writing!

Aid isn't the same. There's only so much money your government is going to spend on foreign aid, and only so much time and energy that will go into figuring out how it's going to be to spent. It's extremely important that we not spend it on things like bikes for kids in Tanzania, because that's money that we could otherwise be spending on something worthwhile, not just subscriptions to Reader's Digest. Raging against that is far from a waste of time.

If you can buy US food aid in the market in Kigali, then some of the resources we used to get that food aid there were wasted and could have had a greater impact if we'd spent them in some other way. If an old couple from Virginia is wasting resources, that's OK. If the government is wasting aid money, no, that's not OK.

What seems to come out of this your bigger question: 'who should decide how aid is used?'

We all can agree that the recipient matters, but the fact is that donors matter too. If organization x tells me that my money will go to buy chickens in a specific African village, I expect that to happen. As is often the case, this does not really happen. In this example, I do not think it would be unfair if I was to be upset that my money was not being used the way I intended and was told. Why is it so hard for an org to fess up and let a donor know when a changed needs to be made? Maybe it is too complex, but that would certainly help things along and reassure donors that the money is being used in the most effective way possible.

To me, there seems to be two problems; uninformed and misinformed donors. Organizations are not always completely truthful as they need donations to continue their work. Donors believe these organizations to be trustworthy because they are charitable. That is not to say that most or even many organizations are corrupt, but it is to imply that many will take some freedoms (ie. Kiva, Heifer Int'l, etc). That does not excuse anyone from not doing the necessary research when considering a donation. If this is correct the solution is for organizations to be more upfront with what is really happening with money donated and donors do their homework.

The recipients should always matter most, but how is aid best distributed? The 'mommy knows best' solution furthers paternalism and handouts can do much the same while creating dependency. I don't really have an answer to that, but I hope that it highlights the fact that it is extremely complex. So in the end, I am taking the middle by saying that everyone has some sort of voice in the matter because they are taking part in the process.

I don't know if that is much of an answer. I hope other people share some ideas as well.