2.  Aid resources stimulate inadequate income distribution in underdeveloped society. First, they withdraw people from private sector – the main engine of economic growth in any type of society – in rather inefficient aid programs. Secondly they artificially withdraw the most intelligent and educated parts of population from social opposition, social “criticism” or at least from social impartiality in relation to the State, employing them in State attached aid programs and in one way or another reorienting their interests (first of all material or financial interests) towards advocacy and support of the government.

3.  International aid creates an illusion that government is doing “all right” since it is supported by “international community”, which may be very far from reality.

International aid generates quite a lot of controversy both in donor countries and in “beneficiary" ones. First of all, efficiency of international aid, i.e. its capacity to achieve development (not political) objectives of concrete programs is exceptionally doubtful and is hardly praised anywhere except in biased and partial official declarations. However, we are rather interested generally in the entire idea of international aid rather than in its poor efficiency – i.e. in the idea of coercive expropriation of the taxpayers’ money and of their redistribution to the governments of underdeveloped countries. Fundamental arguments for and against aid are based on its very nature and fundamental objectives:

1.  Aid is having controversial influence upon beneficiary country’s economic development (economic factors/efficiency)

Positive

-   In the short-term aid is stimulating economic growth coming from growth in both governmental (grants, budget support, direct subsidies, "concessional" loans, etc.) and private (local and international experts) spending in beneficiary country

Negative

-    Beneficiary governments have rather inadequate capacities to manage international aid

     Comprehensive illegal and legal corruption in underdeveloped society as well as inefficient governance are being further consolidated by additional resources coming from international aid

     General situation in underdeveloped countries embracing enormously powerful State bureaucracy and weak civil society is further promoted by international aid – our money are effectively strengthening government against opposition and against civil society buying voters in favor of the governments and against opposition, which might be more friendly to donor countries

     Rather doubtful is the very nature of supporting national and sectoral programs/policies of the governments of underdeveloped countries. In majority of cases such programs represent fictitious documents created specifically to please the donors and even written by the donors. Governments in underdeveloped countries, owing to an existing there balance of power (very strong state bureaucracy and weak civil society), have the possibility to do literally nothing – usually they simply do not have any real policy, strategy or any sustainable vision for that matter – on the contrary to economically developed countries the pressure upon those governments on behalf of voters and civil society is rather insignificant.

     Because of the specific balance of power in underdeveloped society (enormously powerful State bureaucracy and weak civil society) underdeveloped countries are dictatorships, semi-dictatorships or at most countries with cosmetic democracy. Accordingly, interests of underdeveloped countries’ governments and real true interests of their people are usually one hundred percent opposite. This is moreover so because the single economic interest of their governments stands in the redistribution of people’s money and of the other economic benefits through the state budget in favor of top-level state bureaucracy. On account of the latter four bullet points the entire conception of aid ownership by beneficiary government is quite a nonsense

-    Donors have rather limited capacities to manage international aid

     Donors and people in donor countries are having a rather poor and too idealized understanding of the nature of underdeveloped societies combined with a rather strong inclination to apply economically developed countries recipes. This is particularly unsustainable since underdeveloped countries are built on absolutely different balance of power.

     Procedural concepts and aid delivery methodology are critically underdeveloped in donor countries. Moreover, this is combined with emergence of the new particularly controversial aid modalities such as budget support – the easiest way to buy beneficiary government. Economically developed countries do not have any vision of international development, except for simple buying of underdeveloped governments

     Donor countries possess rather low institutional capacities in order to manage international aid. They are so low on account of bureaucracy, specific interests and bias of officials and of experts, shortage of suitably qualified and experienced personnel, lawful corruption and enormous inefficiency of the entire development industry, bulk, rush and volume driven approach to aid delivery

     Another strong indicator of wrongdoings in the industry is political motivation and pleasing of beneficiary governments

2.  Aid is controversial in terms of pure political buying of beneficiary governments (political factors/interests)

Positive

-    In the short-term international aid is buying the governments of beneficiary countries thus generating our current minute allies as well as promoting to one degree or another would be economically developed countries’ interests (mostly imaginary, idealized and illusory interests)

Negative

-    Support of the repulsive governments in underdeveloped countries significantly irritates most educated and intelligent parts of population in these countries (major, if not the single, stronghold of economically developed countries’ values and of sustainable sympathy towards donor countries and people) as well as other parts of civil society. Also we must take into account that in underdeveloped society patriotism and national unity are rather weak and any aid funds are usually seen there as a support for existing government – not for national development. [short-term perspective – irritating friends, generating wide-scale disbelieve among them]

-    Another problem is that together with future economic and social development, a share of educated and intelligent population in these countries will increase and the way they will see economically developed countries and our former “buying governments” policy will be equally negative [long-term perspective – rooted sustainable mistrust to donor countries]

-    Support of repulsive and corrupted beneficiary governments is deteriorating in underdeveloped societies any trust in any social principles and in economically developed countries generally [long-term perspective – rooted mistrust to any type of society and societal order embedding potential non-socialization in people abundantly immigrating in donor countries]

-    Buying of current governments does not necessarily mean that we are buying friendly governments – most of the time we are buying our ideological or sometimes even real enemies (corrupted and dictatorial governments of underdeveloped countries are hardly ever our friends). While our true real friends if represented by opposition and by more educated and intelligent parts of civil society are appalled and pushed away by such actions [short-term perspective – pleasing enemies, irritating friends]

-    If we are buying our ideological or our real enemies there is usually no guarantee that our money are not strengthening military and oppressive capacities of beneficiary governments [long-term perspective – paying for our enemies’ military capacities]

 Any aid is interfering in a very delicate balance of power in underdeveloped society supporting Government and State bureaucracy (which are normally very strong in underdeveloped countries) against opposition and civil society (which are rather weak in there). Only extremely efficient aid might probably more or less justify such deterioration of power balance. While international aid as such, being managed by poorly qualified and rather inefficient governments of economically developed countries and being provided to legally and illegally corrupted governments of underdeveloped countries is very far from having anything to do with efficiency.

Table bellow provides several additional arguments for and against aid or rather arguments for aid and arguments against “arguments for aid”.  

	Arguments for aid	Arguments against "arguments for aid"
Reforms	1.  Aid helps to support reforms with necessary technical actions and expertise (privatization, democratization, improvement of regulatory framework, consolidation of institutional capacities)  2.  Aid helps to explain the need of reforms to wider parts of population 3.  Aid helps to buy conformity of certain governmental officials and of certain groups of population with extra benefits so that they will have less incentives to oppose any reforms  4.  Aid helps to ease burden of reforms for the most vulnerable parts of population  5.  Aid is lobbying reforms by applying aid conditionality principle	1. Without aid voters would not have access to additional financial resources and will be much sooner dissatisfied with inefficient and authoritarian governance. Therefore, reforms can be implemented much faster or at least a need for them might be understood much earlier. 2. Aid conditionality principle is poorly followed and is effectively applied very rarely if at all  3. Any artificial support produces one or another degree of social parasitism and/or even aid addiction. Support of long-term nature also generates an addiction to social parasitism both on behalf of governments and on behalf of the people, which poses serious barriers on the way of any kind of reforms  4. Very few aid resources are reaching the most vulnerable parts of population
Democratization	Aid supports civil society and alternative social institutions	1. Most of the time, aid rather supports the Government in mythical believe that it will pursue a scope of democratization. Democratization is something, which is strange as well as absolutely contrary to any government and only creates problems for the latter 2. Civil society organizations and NGOs quiet often are becoming addicted to foreign aid, trading specific aid objectives for a direct parasitism on aid contracts 3. Lobbying for democratization is more an issue of international influence, which has to be supported through diplomatic and political tools rather than by means of aid
Social and economic development	Aid can contribute to a development of the most important value generating sectors of economy, which consolidation is finally influencing national development in the long-term perspective	1. Usually aid supports economy in significantly one-dimensional manner – either promoting particular economic sectors or moreover supporting particular companies and enterprises interfering in this way in loyal competition 2. Quite often aid is very much channeled in sectors and companies according to a narrow biased interests of particular beneficiary government’s officials further corrupting the government, consolidating the most powerful internal lobbies and producing rather counter-reforms in this way
Alternatives	Lack of aid may bring even worse Government or even violent social conflicts, which could be dangerous not only for particular underdeveloped country but also for peace and regional stability.	1. Aid may support current repulsive governance, which leadership in the long-term means not only poverty conservation but also unavoidable social and economic regress and degradation and which finally may degrade society up to the very same dangerous point 2. It is exactly the political regimes and governments of low social value what is cultivating and feeding any social conflict. 3. Any acts of support for political regimes and governments of low social value significantly irritate intelligent and educated parts of population in aid recipient countries and produce long-term mistrust to the donor countries and even to democracy as a whole 4. It is most unlikely that an inadequate governance in poor underdeveloped country may represent any real threat for economically developed nations

International development industry is significantly based upon unsustainable and devastating for underdeveloped countries idealistic views dominating in modern economically developed society, which fact by and large explains its rather poor performance. International development industry is one of the most controversial and doubtful social phenomena because its real consequence is the consolidation of an enormously inefficient and extraordinary corrupted State monopoly both in underdeveloped countries and in economically developed societies through coercive expropriation of huge financial resources and their channeling from one State to another. Naive question would be how this reinforces the State in economically developed countries. Actually a lion share of aid resources is never leaving the donor country enhancing parasitism and degradation within already incapable and inefficient state bureaucracies as well as among aid addicted programs' implementing private companies, which on the contrary to individuals of idealistic mentality perfectly understand where the wasted money are and how to get them. If a general misuse of State revenues and State expenditures in economically developed countries is more or less camouflaged and a bit limited by our homeland balance of power, the waste of international aid resources brings a great deal of degradation, lawful thievery, inefficiency and absurdity, which costs a lot to underdeveloped societies.

Fundamental reasons for a rather controversial influence of international aid are:

1.  Accelerating State domination in underdeveloped society. Major problem with international aid is its consolidation of the State and of state domination in underdeveloped society, which are extraordinary strong there even without our interference. Large share of all aid resources is channeled through corrupted and incapable governments of underdeveloped countries constantly elevating both illegal corruption and corruption in the system of social and property relations (legal corruption) as well as preserving and supporting impotent (often intolerable) governance by hurting, damaging and sometimes even by destroying any social and political opposition and on top of that by relieving the government from any worries about economic conditions and economic efficiency. All this wicked international support happens, of course, on account of interests of the people in underdeveloped countries generating or escalating poverty, starvation, desperation and violation of human rights owing to consolidation of repulsive societal regimes by means of international aid.  

2.  Enforcement of social parasitism in underdeveloped society. There are basically two major groups in underdeveloped society, which are benefiting from international aid. First and absolutely superior beneficiary is the top-level State bureaucracy, which directly or indirectly is controlling an overwhelming majority of all aid flows reaching underdeveloped countries. Besides that, international aid is creating another specific relevant group of people - local experts and aid projects' subcontractors - which is serving those massive aid funds and which mainly represents a single group in underdeveloped societies except for the top-level state bureaucracy benefiting directly and financially from influx of international aid. Because these people just like international experts and programs/projects' implementing agencies are basically living on coercively expropriated resources (coercively expropriated from the people in economically developed countries), they are or at least they have to be diplomats and bureaucrats being in need to justify spending of coercively extorted, not earned in open market competition, money. Correspondingly is positioned a level of their efficiency - a level of efficiency coming from coercively expropriated resources – a big joke and simultaneously a big tragedy of modern socialism. Those people might be educated, intelligent and high skilled professionals, but even if all of them would be like that – it will not change one bit inefficiency, waste and often even damage coming from the entire industry, which on top of all unfortunately is quite corrupted (corrupted legally being lawful though unjust and inefficient). Not even mentioning that quite a lot of local experts and local subcontractors are either friends or relatives of top-level state bureaucracies in particular underdeveloped countries (otherwise it is rather difficult to get a job or a contract, procedures being mostly social, often legally and illegally corrupted and rarely transparent mainly because of a strong involvement of corrupted governments of aid recipient countries). And finally, through redistribution of aid resources henceforth in underdeveloped societies (whatever insignificant those resources are) particular groups of population there are also becoming to be addicted to aid related parasitism - certain more or less socially vulnerable parts of population or rather, in fact, various special interest and lobbying groups, which pretend to fight for their interests, particular non-profit and civil society organizations, etc. etc. etc.

International aid especially in its modern “bulk-oriented” form has a strong tendency of subsidizing reactionary and autocratic social regimes and political forces oriented towards the past and towards a regress in societal relations.

3.  Exorbitant devastating social idealism in economically developed societies and its projection on underdeveloped countries. Modern economically developed countries are consumed by unsustainable social idealism, but idealism related to international aid and international development is probably the most extreme one. People prefer to think that the only thing they have to do is to be compassionate and to write a check. However, the problem with writing checks underlined by coercively expropriated resources redistributed to obnoxious corrupted coercive regimes is that not only we are destroying underdeveloped societies and their people, but to a significant extent we are damaging our own already quite handicapped society. Social idealism dominating modern economically developed nations in a peculiar way is projected on underdeveloped ones. This is happening in two premeditated ways. First of all under an influence of foreign diplomacy and of foreign aid, “social” or rather socialist values of economically developed countries including social idealism are being significantly imposed on underdeveloped society or at least upon those parts of population there, which are having financial opportunity to be idealistic. Secondly, top-level state bureaucracy in underdeveloped countries is getting extremely attuned to socialist ideas and socialist rhetoric dominating modern economically developed society, which are helping it not only to enslave, to trick and to fool their own people and to expropriate whatever money they got, but also to deceive and to fool the entire “international community” whatever it is.

We must always remember that interests of the State and those of the people especially in countries with poorly developed democracy are absolutely not the same and State policy in no way can be considered as people’s policy. Vice a versa, most of the time any State policy is directed against interests of the people mainly because the State's and the State bureaucracy's single way of supporting themselves stands in expropriation of people's money.

4.  Deterioration in underdeveloped societies of any social principles. Owing to deficiency of international development policies, of international relations and also to a colossal inefficiency and even absurdity of international aid practices, international development industry is not only deteriorating in underdeveloped societies any social principles but also is significantly undermining there any trust to economically developed nations. This mistrust is cultivated by extraordinary enforcement of lawful and illegal corruptions through massive income redistributions from economically developed countries to mostly futile governments of underdeveloped ones; by discrediting democracy, which in underdeveloped world is rather associated with corruption than with societal justice; by enormous benefits arising from sucking up to repugnant homeland political regimes supported by international aid on the contrary to benefits, which can arise from the hard work; by deplorable parody on “freedom” based on accelerated state domination consolidated by international aid; by inefficiency of economy and society multiplied by inefficiency of international aid, etc. etc. etc. This mistrust, strong enough already today, will accelerate with the time passing by, when people in underdeveloped countries will become much more educated and intelligent and will be able to evaluate results of our hideous socialist experiments in their poor unhappy countries more objectively.

Today international aid is in strong opposition to international development and represents almost a counter-development tool. International aid is buying futile and non-socialized political elites of underdeveloped countries with a price of economic, social and human development of underdeveloped nations. In the best case international aid is promoting short-term political interests of economically developed countries’ political elites on account of long-term interests of the people both in economically developed and in underdeveloped countries.