Give aid money directly to local groups, and let the donors take on the risk of money being wasted
In short
- Donors send a set share of their aid straight to local groups and local governments.
- Donors cut back the money and the role of the big international organizations in the middle.
- If some of the money is lost, the donors accept it as their own loss.
- The people in the area that receives the aid decide how to use it.
If this comes true
In a town on a dry highland, a women's cooperative uses aid that came straight to them to buy a rice mill they chose themselves, and they get it in time for the harvest without waiting for permission from a faraway office.
Perhaps
Some of the aid given directly might flow to relatives of a powerful local figure, and people in the donor country who read about it might turn their backs on aid altogether.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal requires, as a duty and not just a goal to try for, that rich countries and international bodies give at least a set share of their development aid directly to local groups, residents' cooperatives, local governments, and similar bodies in the receiving country. The share is raised step by step, and donors report every year how far they have reached it. For money given directly, donors stop demanding detailed paperwork in their own language and format. A simple report written in the receiving side's own language, plus a check on how the money is used that local residents take part in, is enough. The local groups and residents decide which projects to spend the money on, and donors only set out the broad direction. Then, even if money is lost up to a set share of what was given directly, through failure or weak management, donors do not punish the aid staff or organizations for it, and they do not cut off the next round of aid. They treat it as a loss they planned for in advance within their own budget. However, if deliberate wrongdoing such as embezzlement is found, payments to that group are stopped and repayment is demanded. Big international organizations move from being the direct carriers of aid to giving technical and accounting advice when asked. Areas where armed fighting continues and giving money directly is dangerous are left out.
BenefitsMoney and decision-making power reach the people who know best
With fewer organizations in the middle, the same amount of aid puts more money in the hands of local people. The people who live there know best what is needed, so there are fewer unused buildings and mismatched plans, and money goes to things that really help. When the power to decide moves to the community, local groups build the strength to keep their projects going on their own after the aid ends. Because donors plan for a certain amount of loss in advance, officials no longer need to rely on big organizations out of fear of failure, and small but capable local groups get a chance to try. Freed from piles of detailed paperwork, local groups can spend their time on their real work instead of on writing reports. Because residents take part in checking how money is used, the watching is done by people close by, which can work better than an audit from far away. And the experience of deciding about their own community for themselves changes people who receive aid from people who are simply given things into people who build their community's future.
DrawbacksWe accept lost money and shakier trust in aid
Admitting in advance that some of the money given directly will be lost means accepting that part of the tax money will actually disappear through failure or weak management. Some local groups have weak accounting skills or are controlled by powerful people in the area, and the money may end up benefiting a few people and not reach the weaker members of the community. Residents' checks may also fail to work well, because it is hard to speak up in front of powerful people. If even one such case is reported in the news, distrust of aid itself may spread among people in the donor country, and it could become an excuse to cut the whole aid budget. There are also fields, such as fighting infectious disease and large construction work, where the specialized knowledge that big international organizations have built up over many years cannot be fully used by small local groups. The government of a receiving country may also dislike foreign money flowing to groups in its country without passing through the government, and may tighten its control over those groups. The jobs of people who have long worked in the field of aid would also be greatly reduced.
Learn the background
Most development aid does not go straight from the donor country to the people in the receiving country. It passes through many layers: the donor country's agencies, big international organizations, and the contractor groups under them. Each layer takes out office costs and staff pay, so only part of the money reaches local people. Plans are also decided in faraway offices, and sometimes buildings that do not fit local conditions are put up and then left unused. People have said for a long time that money should go directly to local groups, who know their area best, but there has been almost no progress. The reason lies in how the donors' system works. Aid money is tax money, so even a small misuse is harshly attacked in legislatures and the news, and the officials in charge are held responsible. So officials prefer to work through big organizations that can produce detailed paperwork and will take the blame if something fails. A system that fears failure ends up making aid distant, expensive, and poorly matched to local needs.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes