There are instances where direct cash aid has proven very effective vs traditional aid. Notably in food aid where giving people and farmers money instead of just distributing food lifts the whole community up. With traditional food aid where it's just given away it doesn't help local farmers because it's just satisfying some of the need for food keeping them from really advancing economically. When cash is given instead the ability to buy food goes up, farmers can invest in better equipment or more workers, and the money circulates through the community. Giving money greases the wheels and kickstarts a little economic boom.

It's not a perfect solution because it needs a certain level of stability and existing things to boost but it's a fairly robust way of helping people become less reliant on outside aid in the long run.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/we...

I think giving people (not local governments) money would typically help them develop faster than deciding for them what to spend the money on. But a country can’t develop without decent institutions and I agree that you have to work around the constraints created by governmental corruption.

>I think giving people (not local governments) money

And what stops the local government from trying to take a big cut?

You realize corrupt indivisuala and governments get their fingers into the specific aid that flows through NGOs as well right?

Of course. But you plant an liquid asset somewhere and the best they can do is tax it. You move fungible stuff like money or staple grains around and a lot more is going to evaporate along the way.

They can force you to hire their contractors for construction and delivery, at an exorbitant price to fund kickbacks. They can have you install infrastructure on public land and then seize that land and use it for an aristocrat's private residence. They can restrict the places you can build infrastructure to provinces that recently favored the ruling party to curry political favor. There are plenty of ways for despots to profit off of "development" projects beyond taxation.

good question, maybe you give the money continuously (every month or so) and commit to stop giving it if the local government tries to take too big a cut – then their incentive to start taking a cut would be limited

look up your senators' investments!

corruption.

I agree on the principle: giving money to people whose personal development is hindered by poverty obviously allows them to overcome the hindrance.

However, this does not mean that giving money to people is going to make those people want to develop themselves and their surroundings, unless they are already in the process of doing so.

The British ca. 1910 would certainly agree.