UK taxpayers were charged £100 MILLION for USAID
Another day of austerity!
On Monday I broke the news that USAID funded BBC Media Action. The story has since gained large traction.
Although this information may give the impression that Brits were only receiving money from USAID, I have since discovered that UK taxpayers have been charged £100 MILLION for it.
That's according to the 360 Giving website (see the picture above for the total spending amount).
Here are 10 examples of what that looks like:
Health Reform Support in Ukraine
USAID Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services TAPAS Programme in Ukraine
Support to USAID's Health Support Reform Programme
Multi-donor mentoring women and young people in politics
Multi-donor mentoring women and young people in politics (2)
Contribution to Moldova's Competitiveness Project
Hamro Samman Programme - Implementation through USAID
Support to the Moldova Competitiveness Project (2)
Contribution to USAID Education programme in Jordan
Support to USAID's Health Support Reform Programme (2)
With Donald Trump shutting down USAID, at least it’s one less place for the Government to waste our money.
FUND WOKE WASTE, DEFEAT THE BLOB
Please consider a paid subscription or PayPal/ Buy me a Coffee donation if you want me to fuel my research (DOGE UK). Thank you to all my supporters to date!
Charlotte- I think a few of your sub-titles are mixed up. For example, St Helena with Moldovan competitiveness, and Mentoring young females and the St Helena airstrip. Anyway the gist is clear and to me as an ex aid advisor (as a private consultant) it all rings terribly true. The biggest beneficiaries of overseas aid are (in order):
1. The administrators in the donor country
2. The western consultancy firms which deliver the projects
3. The bigwigs in the recipient country (Govt officials) who want their slice
4. The project targets (villagers, farmers, school kids etc)
It will vary from project to project but I would say the first two take 50-90 per cent of the money. The ones at the end of the line cost the least, The argument is that it is not money that is being transferred but skills, and westerners with the skills are expensive to employ. True. But a lot of projects do not deliver the change needed, either because of poorly defined projects, hostile recipient governments (but who want the money spent in their country), inadequate local recipients or even inadequate consultants. But it's a fine old merry-go-round for those on it.
Once, when working in a developing country, I recommended to the aid organisation that was financing me that much of the aid was a waste of money (and was preventing locals moving into more skilled and responsible positions), and the programme should be stopped. The visiting administrator looked at me in amazement. Fat chance of that, Jos. This programme is part of our diplomatic policy to keep friends (or at least not enemies) in different parts of the world. It is not important to achieve anything! He could also have mentioned, but didn't, that he and his mates enjoyed swanning around the world, having a week here and there in the best hotels in exotic locations. On that particular visit, he met all the consultants/advisors/ etc working under the programme (about 15) in a hotel bar, bought us all a drink, waffled vaguely about the good work we were doing (he had no idea) - and that was that. He spent the remaining four days on the beach, snorkelling, swimming, paragliding - and perhaps a few other activities with some dusky maidens who suddenly appeared at the beach bars around any lone westerner.
I have a few other tales from life as a consultant. Perhaps I should write my memoirs!
Is anyone else worried that Keir Starmer or Lammy will offer to make good the USAID shortfall, as they did with WHO when Trump withdrew?
I hope to see Charlotte working with Mike Benz soon!