Forum for the Future of Aid

Bilateral agreement and now the new "trilateral agreement" has been used as the playcard for better results from such programs. The host nations are made to make such agreement, as these nations are dependent on aid for vital functionings. But ironically such agreement only creates legal conduit to transfer aid money into the hands of corrupt and incompetent leaders, leading to further deterioration of the nation's situation. While the donor community just remains a spectator, as I assumed that they have their own interests and stakes from such a transactions, and remain silent as long as the host nation complies to their demands. Such actions further boosts confidence for bad leaderships, leading to civil war and social unrest. I dont want to name the nations as we can find many nations in turmoil across continents.
My query is, if the donor community transparently wants development to occur in those nations, why does not it track the funds to single penny? When they have the leverage to mould the governance in agreeing their requisites before appoval of such money, then can use that leverage in creating an environment where each expenditures can be tracked. As such activities can discourage the leadership to waste aid money and prove a channel to reach the people in need. Other issue is why do donor communities fund government or leaders which have proven to be ineffective in serving the people or those organisations (NGOs) that have a tainted background?
So if the donor communities really desire development to occur and livelihoods of millions of people to rise, they should function in such a way that the funds reaches to the bottom, valid materials are used, there is no overpayment to staff, no laundering of the funds, etc. I believe such approach will benefit the nation in the long run and raise awareness and faith among the local populations regarding the role of donor communities in their locality.