My second thought was that it’s likely true that some developing country governments could improve their economies by printing and distributing money, but they won’t because they’re corrupt, and giving directly is a workaround to force that policy upon them. This seems plausible at first, but it feels forced; the leaders’ incentives here are ambiguous, not clearly aligned against this sort of policy.
If I remember correctly, didn’t a significant portion of Zimbabwe’s funding come from some Scandinavian charity which, as official policy, gave out local currency rather than dollars, and required buying the local currency from the government with real money at the official rate?
If I remember correctly, didn’t a significant portion of Zimbabwe’s funding come from some Scandinavian charity which, as official policy, gave out local currency rather than dollars, and required buying the local currency from the government with real money at the official rate?