Absolutely, but the impact is definitely still there and I think we just need better metrics to capture the more complex results. After all, it's likely possibl

Absolutely, but the impact is definitely still there and I think we just need better metrics to capture the more complex results. After all, it's likely possible to do child sponsorship well and poorly. As a side note airlifting in grain in often far more expensive than buying the grain closer to the target area, and causes significant economic harm by putting people employed in farming and the grain supply chain out of work (sometimes the very people the intervention was supposed to help). The main reason we do it is the domestic grain lobby. > Two-thirds of food for the billion-dollar US food aid programme last year was bought from just three US-based multinationals. > The main beneficiaries of the programme, billed as aid to the world's poorest countries, were the highly profitable and politically powerful companies that dominate the global grain trade: ADM, Cargill and Bunge. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/jul/18/us-multinationals-control-food-aid https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/jul/18/u... For-profit capture of foreign aid is a much larger problem. For example, remember the news stories after Trump announced cuts to foreign aid saying many retired generals had signed a letter saying foreign aid was vital to protecting our troops? Most forgot to mention that that letter was organized by a trade organization of big defense contractors that regularly win foreign aid contracts (and employ ex-generals) https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2018/02/21/should-we-be-asking-questions-about-the-retired-admirals-and-generals-foreign-aid-letter/ https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2018/02/21/should-we-be-askin...