From The Onion:
PORT-AU-PRINCE, HAITI—Three months after a 7.0 earthquake rocked the impoverished island nation of Haiti, 36-year-old Brad Halder visited its demolished capital to see firsthand how his $10 donation to a relief fund was being spent. “It’s been a little while, so I just wanted to check in and make sure my money was being put to good use,” Halder told reporters while surveying the still largely devastated region. “To tell you the truth, I was kind of expecting to see a lot more new homes by now. And, I don’t know, maybe some new hospitals or something. But, jeez, did they get any of the $10 I sent them?” After noting that nearly 90 percent of the country still lived in abject poverty, Halder announced that any funds left over from his donation should probably go toward rebuilding Haiti’s infrastructure.
More serious posts on the earthquake in Haiti are here and here. The effectiveness of development aid is a highly contested topic. Here‘s one example of inefficient aid. Some even believe that we should stop giving aid altogether, perhaps with the exception of disaster relief after earthquakes and such. Dambisa Moyo is a well-known propagator of that argument (see here and here). Others believe that we should on the contrary increase the levels of development aid, while spending the money in a more efficient way (the U.S. is regularly scolded for it’s relatively low levels of development aid, and the joke above obviously refers to the U.S. in general rather than just one bloke). One way to make aid more efficient is cash transfers. Other types of efficient development aid – albeit indirect types of aid – are trade liberalization, investment, the promotion of migration and debt relief.
More jokes here.