I think that the man has a point. I think (and luckily, I'm holding no public office, so I can think what I want) the effect includes criminal organizations, in

I think that the man has a point. I think (and luckily, I'm holding no public office, so I can think what I want) the effect includes criminal organizations, in places other than Kenya. I've been swayed by Joe Stiglitz's account (read, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_Its_Discontents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_Its_Disconten...). I'm no expert, but I've done a fair bit of reading, and my take is this: The problem isn't the aid -- it's the onerous terms placed on extremely fragile societies. This is somewhat akin to tough VC terms on startups, except a thousand times worse - rarely do startups have military junta evolved specifically to plunder said sources of funding. Often, the only organizations surviving a calamity are criminal organizations (threats on one's wellbeing are, unfortunately, one of the only dependable crediting strategies in an economic collapse), which then grab up most of the funds, and a self-reinforcing pattern emerges: the most corrupt organizations, those most effective at looting aid, are in the best position to do it again. But aid is not bad, wholesale. Ethiopia refused IMF aid, and eventually turned it's fortunes around after an incredible period of adversity. But if they could have taken a loan at less punitive rates, without stripping their economy of the regulations that would eventually serve them, their economy and population would not have suffered so miserably.