Development Aid : How necessary and effective ?
A cataclysm. This is how we can describe the decision to suspend the activities of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) taken by President Donald J. Trump, the new President of the United States, just after he officially took office. It was an unexpected, extreme and even unfair decision, but understandable given the information that pouring in about the use of development aid by recipient governments, institutions and structures, its purpose and its real effectiveness on vulnerable populations, the main recipients. Every year, the United States allocates tens of billions of dollars in development aid. The President of United States for Year 2024 budget requested of $63.1 billion for the Department of State and USAID. This budget was divided between direct aid to governments, funding for NGOs, humanitarian projects and development initiatives in sectors such as health, education and agriculture.
What is Public development aid and what is its purpose ?
Development aid or Official Development Assistance (ODA) refers to the resources or donations, soft loans or expertise provided by rich countries or international organisations to support less-favoured countries. Its initial aim is to improve living conditions, stimulate economic growth and reduce poverty. Since 1960, billions of dollars have been invested in this approach, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America, with results that today give rise to much debate. On the one hand, we can point to specific tangible successes such as the funding of essential infrastructure (schools, hospitals, drinking water networks), thereby increasing school enrolment rates or reducing infant mortality. ODA can also be presented as a lever for attracting other private sector funding in areas where investors are reluctant to commit, by supporting specific programmes linked to health or agriculture, with a direct impact on the population. On the other hand, the overall effectiveness of this aid is being questioned.
Numerous examples show that aid has not always led to sustainable economic growth or a significant reduction in poverty at country level. One of the reasons for this lies largely in the misuse of allocated resources (misappropriation, widespread corruption or poorly conceived projects). The other reason is the creation of a dependency that does not encourage local governments to develop their own resources or to thoroughly reform and clean up their institutions. This aid serves the interests of the donors (political influence, contracts for their own companies) rather than those of the real beneficiaries. Worse still, in specific cases, it has been used to finance terrorist groups, revolutions and the media throughout the world, thereby encouraging changes in political regimes according to the wishes of the donors.
How effective is development aid ?
Generally speaking, there are a number of concrete indicators that can be used to assess the effectiveness of development aid. These include the school enrolment rate, access to healthcare, access to drinking water, the number of kilometres of road built, especially in productive rural areas, people’s purchasing power and access to employment. Measuring the impact of development aid on governance or economic stability is much more complicated. For example, donor countries meeting within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are trying to improve their management by regularly evaluating their actions. However, the results vary from case to case. In France, development aid follows very clear priorities (effectiveness with measurable results, transparency on the use of funds and coherence with global policies), in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim for a more equitable world by 2030. Here too, the sums involved (€15 billion a year) do not always produce the desired results. The current debates about the use of funds allocated by the Agence Française pour le Développement (AFD) to a number of projects around the world are a case in point. Very official voices are being raised to denounce a huge scandal in their management, almost equivalent to those stirring up in the United States, with the situation that USAID is going through, apart from a few nuances.
Freeze or permanent cessation of USAID activities?
New President of the United States, Donald J. Trump’s decision, as it stood on 27 February 2025, appeared to be moving towards a definitive measure, although uncertainties remain due to legal battles and sometimes contradictory statements by the administration. Initially, at the time of his inauguration on 20 January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order freezing US development aid for 90 days. This decision temporarily suspended the majority of USAID’s activities. According to official statements, the purpose of the freeze was to re-evaluate aid programmes to bring them into line with the new administration’s priorities of reducing public spending. At this time, the decision appeared to be provisional, to allow time for a more in-depth review. However, the actions that followed suggest that the objective is more radical, given the discoveries made later during investigations and questioning by various governments or recipient organisations about the precise use of certain funds allocated.
Massive cuts in the agency’s workforce and the cancellation of numerous foreign aid contracts in various countries with different NGOs were then decided in view of the worrying, even alarming, discoveries made. From more than 10,000 employees, the Agency has been reduced to less than 300, according to some sources. And there’s more to come. The Trump administration has already cut aid by 60 billion dollars and continues to cut contracts. Legal action has been taken by opponents of this measure, including the former Director of USAID, Samantha Power, and the Global Health Council, who point to the agency’s humanitarian impact and its importance for American influence (Soft Power), while playing down the agency’s corruption, dependence and political instrumentalisation around the world. All the more so as they offer no concrete solutions to remedy the shortcomings that they themselves have sometimes encouraged or to which they have turned a blind eye. The important thing to remember about all this is that although the measure began as a temporary one (a 90-day freeze), the scale of the discoveries, the budget cuts, the declarations and the latest legal advances suggest that the United States is moving towards definitive abolition.
The disturbing findings of the Trump Administration
From Haiti and Uganda to Ukraine and Canada, the Trump administration, through the Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has made incredible discoveries about the use of funds allocated by USAID to certain governments and organisations, sometimes clashing with the agency’s security services in the United States and in these foreign countries, creating a confrontation between them.
After the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti, USAID allocated around $4.4 billion in foreign aid to the country in a variety of ways. Officially, at least $1.5 billion of this was earmarked for immediate humanitarian aid, while a further $3 billion was earmarked for recovery, reconstruction and development. Questions remain, however, about the proper use of resources. Research has shown that less than 2% of this amount has reached Haitian beneficiaries, while 56% has bailed out companies in Washington.
In Canada, discoveries made about funds allocated by USAID have revealed a number of controversial and ineffective expenditures. Billions of dollars allocated to equity, inclusion and diversity programmes have been called into question, including gender consultants in Central America and diversity grants in Burma. These discoveries have sparked debate about the effectiveness and transparency of public spending, as well as the need to re-evaluate certain programmes. USAID’s website was shut down, its social media accounts deleted and employees put on administrative leave or repatriated, reinforcing the idea that it was being dismantled.
In Uganda and Ukraine, a number of irregularities were also found in the management of funds. In Ukraine, it was revealed that billions of dollars intended for economic aid had been used for dubious purposes. For example, funds were spent on sending Ukrainian models and designers to fashion events in New York, London and Paris. In addition, large sums were allocated to companies for non-essential projects, such as luxury furniture lines and contemporary clothing brands or fashion magazines. For example, Volodymyr Zelensky and his wife Olena Zelenska posed for a photo shoot for the American edition of Vogue in July 2022. The photos were taken by the famous photographer Annie Leibovitz and provoked a wide range of reactions. In Uganda, USAID made payments of $153 billion for various expenses, including salaries and debts to organisations. These payments were made despite a freeze on foreign aid funds imposed by the Trump administration. These discoveries have raised concerns about the transparency and effectiveness of the use of USAID funds in these countries. There are other examples.
With regard to the funding of terrorist groups around the world, the Trump administration has come to the conclusion, following in-depth research, that some US aid has been diverted to serve the interests of terrorist organisations just about everywhere, including in Africa, despite measures to monitor and prevent such diversions, but also to fuel or to rise revolutions in certain countries and to subsidise large-scale media to impose a rhetoric favourable to the actions taken, as in Moldova. Officially, these funds were allocated to promote democracy, press freedom and the free flow of information. In Central and Eastern Europe 707 media outlets and 6,200 journalists, including AFP, received funds to promote democracy and press freedom. Reuters received 9 million dollars from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to evaluate defence tools. 9 out of 10 media outlets received funding to support the war effort in Ukraine. BBC Media Action received funding to support local media around the world. For the DOGE, America Soft Power can be managed in a way other than through ill-conceived, poorly allocated or misdirected aid that puts the American taxpayer into debt.
Concerns about AFD funds
The case of USAID is not an isolated one. For some time now, more or less official voices have been raising similar concerns about the aid allocated by the Agence Française pour le Développement (AFD) to a number of organisations and governments. The final use of a large proportion of these resources is detrimental to France’s general interests and serves private interests instead, hence the need for greater transparency and better management of the funds allocated by the Agency. Several reports, investigations and articles have highlighted problems of transparency and efficiency in the use of these funds. For example, Philippe Marchesin, Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Paris 1, researcher and author of several books, including one on official development assistance, has criticised the opacity and hidden interests behind this aid. An investigation carried out by Disclose revealed that AFD finances opaque projects in Africa and hides behind banking secrecy to avoid revealing its practices. Bertrand Walckenaer, AFD Deputy General Director, was interviewed as part of the Disclose investigation. He defended the agency against accusations of favouritism towards French companies.
He explained that the over-representation of French companies in AFD tenders was due to the « high standards » demanded by AFD in terms of « social and environmental responsibility standards ». Xavier Azalbert, Chief Editor of FranceSoir, has published an exclusive investigation into AFD’s practices, highlighting controversial financing and a lack of transparency.
The Focus 2030 Report, entitled « France’s official development assistance in a world of uncertainty: A fading ambition? Review 2017-2024 and outlook», analyses the evolution of France’s official development assistance (ODA) policy since 2017 and highlights the significant budget cuts affecting French ODA and calling into question the achievement of the goals. It has served as a basis for criticism from French politicians. Indeed, at the level of the French political landscape, Sarah Knafo, MEP and Vice-President of Reconquête, has criticised the French Development Agency (AFD) for what she sees as a waste of French money. She denounced the financing of projects she considers incongruous, such as a programme to strengthen gender equality in Albania and a gender budgeting project in Jordan. She also expressed concern about the possibility of funds destined for Gaza being intercepted by Hamas. Other MEPs and Senators agreed with her without going into details. Olivier Marleix, Republican MP, expressed concerns about the transparency and effectiveness of certain projects financed by AFD.
Éric Coquerel, MP for La France Insoumise, criticised AFD for its lack of transparency and called for better management of public funds. Nathalie Goulet, Senator for the Union Centriste, also raised questions about the effectiveness of official development assistance and called for greater transparency in the use of funds.
So, although development aid is useful, its overall effectiveness on recipients can be called into question, as it has not led to sustainable economic growth or a significant reduction in poverty in the recipient countries over the long term, regardless of the amount invested.
Humaniterre
@Roselyne Kandel
