Who should decide where aid goes?
Discussion question | This is for ages 14 to 15
Aid decisions are often made by governments far away from the people affected.
Who should have the most say in how aid is spent? Donor governments, non-government aid organisations, or local communities?
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think [donor governments/non-government aid organisations/ local communities] should have the most say because [your reason]. I have seen/read that [provide a news source to support your view]. However, others might argue that [an alternative opinion].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (100)
I think local communities should have the most say because they understand more about their needs. People who live in the area know what problems are most urgent, whether it's clean water, schools, or healthcare. Unlike goverments far away, local people see the situation every day, so they can help make sure aid is used in the right way and not wasted. In Indonesia, the sumatera region is now being hit with major floods and the goverment is planning to donate sports equipment, which is really useless for the people that need foods and clothes.
When local communities are involved in decisions, aid is also more likely to be fair and effective. Community members can explain which groups need the most help, such as children, eldery people, or farmers. This helps aid reach the people who really needs it.
However, donor goverments and aid organisations stil have important role to play. They provide money, skills, and experience needed to run large projects. The best solution is for these groups to work closely with the local communities. By listening to local needs and supporting them, aid can make many benefits for everyone.
This seems a sensible way to handle aid distribution, amiable_walrus! How might you ensure the community groups involved are truly representing those in need? Is there a risk that valuable aid could fall into the hands of criminal gangs and not reach the needy?
Aid decisions should not be controlled by only one group. Donor governments and NGOs provide funding and experience, but they should not have the biggest influence. The people who should have the strongest say are local communities and local governments.
Local communities understand their needs better than distant organisations. They know whether their priority is healthcare, education, clean water or jobs. Local governments are also important because they plan long-term development and ensure projects fit real regional needs. When decisions are made only by foreign donors, aid can be wasted on plans that do not help ordinary people.
Other organisations outside these groups should also be involved. Independent experts and universities can research what types of aid work best. Local businesses can create jobs and support economic growth. Community groups such as teachers, religious leaders and youth organisations can represent vulnerable people who are often ignored.
The media and ordinary citizens also play a role by monitoring how aid is spent and exposing corruption. This increases transparency and trust.
Donor governments should still have some influence because they provide money, and NGOs are needed to manage projects. However, they should support rather than control decisions. The best system is a partnership where local communities and local governments guide priorities, NGOs organise projects, donors fund them, and independent organisations provide oversight. Aid works best when those most affected are at the centre.
I agree because the decisions on aid aren't mades by any specific group. I think the local population or local government knows their true needs better than the donor organizations. So, in my perspective, the local population or government knows their needs better than the donor organisations. Decisions involving or making aid are best when everyone is included in some way.
You make a strong case for local priority-setting in terms of decisions for recipients of aid. In business as in governments, there is a concept called a hub and spoke operating model - where the centre sets common standards, and the local nodes receive devolved responsibility to self-determine. This can prove a highly efficient model. However it is challenged where self-interest of the individuals involved occurs, especially corruption - for example awarding contracts to favoured suppliers, or even embezzling funds for personal gain.
This can be a motivator for donors to increase level of control on how funds are spent to ensure responsible use, or in some cases even to operate responsibly themselves to avoid allegations of bribery (e.g. if that corruption subsequently benefits them with increased trade access).
What safeguards or accountability do you think are necessary to make this locally led model viable in environments where corruption is a concern for donors?
There are a few safeguards I think are really important to make a locally led aid system work.
First is decisions shouldn’t be controlled only by local officials. To avoid favoritism, different groups like community members and civil society representatives should also be involved. Having open and competitive bidding for projects helps keep things fair
Second, financial transparency is very important. All aid spending should be openly reported and checked by independent audits. Local media and ordinary citizens should be able to see what’s happening and speak up if something is wrong. This kind of public attention is important as it creates accountability.
Third, strong procurement rules are necessary so that contracts are given fairly and money isn’t misused.
I think the local comunties should have the most say in this case. Seeing the politics of the world currently, some countries only give aid to some certain countries because of their own interest. If they don't benefit from it, they won't do anything. Unlike local comunities that are mostly neutral, governments only give aid beacuse of their interest. There is no such pity in the governments. The governments could also be dominated by a political parties which could caused a injustice in providing the aid. Local comunities weren't influenced by politics would give aid to the people that need it the most. This could provide better aid to the people's affected. But, maybe other could think differently especially because most of the time it was the government who provide the aid so the government got to chose. But the fund used by the government is collected from their civilian's taxes. So local comunities in their country also have right to chose where the aid should be sent. Lastly, this is just my opinion so if you disagree you could reply my comment and give me what are you thinking about this
In my opinion, I think international aid should be decided through a shared process and not by donor countries alone. When only donors can control where aid goes, the decisions are often influenced by politics instead of real peoples needs. This can cause aid to be sent to strategic allies rather than the countries that actually need it the most, you might be wondering: how are we supposed to identify which country needs it most? well international organizations like UNICEF and WHO can help reduce this problem because they use data and assessments to identify urgent crises and act more neutrally. However, I also think that aid decisions should also include local communities and governments because they understand their own situations better than outsiders. This is why I think shared decision making can ensure aid is fairer, and more likely to create a long term positive impact.
Aid should be decided by people who understand the situation directly, such as local leaders, community representatives, and trusted official organizations working on the issues. These people can see the real problems faced by communities and can judge which areas that need help the most. When their decisions are supported by local or national governments and humanitarian groups to ensure fairness and organization, aid can be distributed more efficiently and effectively and reach people who truly need it. Aid is important for the world because it helps reduce people that is suffering and it also save lots of lives. Which makes the world safer and more connected for everyone around the world.
Non-government organizations (NGOs) are groups that help people in need, but they're not run by governments. Here's why they can be important for aid work: They know the communities well. NGOs often live and work in the same places for a long time. This means they understand what people actually need what will really help them. They're not making decisions from far away-they're right there seeing the problems firsthand. They can get supplies and help people faster. They have special skills. Many NGOs have experts in things like medicine, clean water systems, or teaching. These experts know how to solve specific problems and can make sure aid actually works. They're not controlled by politics. Governments sometimes give aid to countries based on politics rather than real need. NGOs focus mainly on helping people, not on political relationships. This means the might help in places that governments won't
Decisions about where aid goes should not be made only by distant governments. While governments and international organisations have resources and oversight, local people and communities should have a much bigger role.
Local communities understand their own needs best, whether it is food, clean water, healthcare or education. Involving them helps make sure aid is relevant and not wasted on projects that do not help. It can also build trust and long-term development rather than short-term fixes.
A fair approach is shared decision-making. Governments, charities and international organisations can provide funding and coordination, but local leaders, NGOs and community members should help decide priorities and how aid is delivered. This makes aid more effective, fairer and more respectful of the people it is meant to help.
In Spain, international aid operates under a mixed model. The goverment decides on the general priorities and the budget. NGOs also play an important role, as they carry out the projects.
However, in my view, local communities should have more say in how aid is distributed because they know the real needs of the population and which problems are the most urgent. In this way, aid would be more effective, and local autonomy would be promoted, as communities would become less dependent.
I believe that NGOs should act as intermediaries, providing expertise and coordinating the projects.
Finally, donor governments play a major role, as they provide funding and set objectives.
In conclusion, all of these institutions are very important for the distribution of aid. I believe that those who live with the consequences should make the decisions.
Communities could have a say in how their allocation of aid is distributed locally, but who should decide how much help each community gets? Should this be the same for everybody or, if not, who decides which area is in most need?
I think donor governments should have the most say in how aid is spent because they are responsible for managing very large public budgets and are expected to show clear results. Most official development assistance comes from the donor governments and according to the OECD global aid reached 200 billion US dollars in recent times making long time planning essential, governments are the only actors with the capacity to plan nationwide programs there are real examples where this has worked well the united states PEPFAR program a government led initiative has saved over 25 million lives and helped reduce aids related deaths by 60% by funding HV programs . This kind of impact was possible because funding decisions were made at a government level. Similarly, UNICEF and WHO report that donor backed vaccination programs have contributed to a 59% reduction in global under 5 mortalities since 1990 showing the impact of a large-scale government coordinated aid. However, others might argue that local communities should decide where aid reaches because they understand immediate needs better and this is a valid concern because in practice the most effective aids tend to happen when donor government lead overall decisions while actively involving local actors, so funding remains accountable while still being shaped by local realities on the ground.
signing off: Fair minded Elephant
Hi fairminded_elephant. Thank you for your comment! Please try to separate sentences and use punctuation if you can. This will make your submissions easier for us (and other Topical Talkers) to follow all the way through.
I believe local communities should be involved as much as possible in deciding where aid money should go. They deal with the problems every day, so they understand what needs urgent attention and what solutions will actually work. Unlike people making decisions from far away, locals know the reality on the ground. Because of this, involving them would help ensure the money reaches the right place and truly makes a difference.
Many news reports and UN case studies show that aid projects sometimes fail because local voices are ignored. For example, after natural disasters, large amounts of money may be spent on buildings or materials that are not immediately needed. Meanwhile, basic needs such as clean drinking water or functioning healthcare facilities remain unmet. This shows how aid can miss its purpose when decisions are made without local input.
Some people argue that donor governments or large aid organisations should decide how the money is used, since they provide the funding and have experience managing large projects. This is a fair point. However, experience alone is not enough if the aid does not match the needs of the specific community. Even well-planned projects can fail if they are unsuitable for the local situation.
In the end, aid is not just about giving money; it is about listening. When local people are involved and take responsibility in guiding decisions, aid becomes more effective and meaningful.
I think the government should decide because they are the ones who actually know most about aid and if we were to decide we might end up doing something bad that we did not mean to do and it does really take a lot of pride and self confidence to have the opurtunity to do it.I think the council should be in charge of it as well because they can decide who needs it the most and that helps aid to understand who needs the most health whether it is because of health care or other things like that.
I agree because, the government has more experience about giving international aid(humanitarian aid). If we were to give children the decision, they might end up making the wrong ones on how international aid should go. Knowing how to deal with international aid, needs a lot of experience and knowledge. In some cases, power or authority is not always needed but maturity because, we need people who have knowledge about how things will work out.
Hello topical talker i think that aid should go first because when you in war you could get badly hurt and you need money to buy medicon and plaster and bangies but you do need defect to but i just think that you always need help you help one another BYE topical talkers.
I am not sure I follow your thoughts, amazing_orangutan - could you please explain a little further?
I think non-government aid organizations should have the most say in how aid is spent. These organizations also known as NGO's are a group of people who work without government support or funding to try and help solve global issues locally or internationally.
I believe people working in NGO's can make the best decisions of how aid can be spent. I personally know a lot of people working in NGO's in Cambodia including my dad who runs a free kindergarten in a very undeveloped part of Cambodia. I know people working in KOICA which is a Korean NGO that give medical aid for the people in need. What I really want to say from this is that I have grown up watching the work of NGO's. What I learnt from this is that NGO's really work to just help the people in need. Most NGO workers are not trying to make more money, they are trying to help people in need. That really proves that they are reliable. They will not be biased about finances, politics as much as governments or locals. I know they will make the best choice for the people who need aid.
We already know that governments can be very biased and is always looking for to do the best for their own country and well being. Also the locals are not that trust worthy as they may request things that are not necessary as some people can get greedy and want more than they really need.
Of course no person in the world is always the right person to make decisions. But I think the NGO workers who already dedicate their lives for helping people in need could make the best opinion and should have the most say in aids.
Thanks so much for sharing your experience for other Topical Talkers to learn from. Are there any arguments on a different side to you that you think are strong, despite not being the ones you agree with most?
I strongly agree, NGOs are more focused on real needs and helping people, without political or financial bias. Therefore, they are better suitted to decide how aids should be spent.
I think local communities should have the most say because they have the actual knowledge required to ensure that solutions are sustainable and appropiate. When problems are decided from the outside, they often fail to adress the root causes of problems.
Local people lives them everyday, Communitites can decide which group needs more and which need less, to be fair and effective.
I have read that the localization movement has gained in global forums. However, others argue that donors and NGOS ensure transparency and expertise.
I think in my opinion that local communities should have the most say, because the communities actually need to develop their local area. In areas where there are problems such as: poor infrastructure, bad water and poor educational institutions etc. Aid should be provided for them to cater for all their problems and provide for them wherever they are lacking. That is why I saw the closure of the USAID to be hasty, due to the fact that there are still millions of people out there that still need their assistance. Due to the poor development of these communities, living conditions can get difficult at times, as this can lead to numerous problems such as diseases due to dirty water. However, many will argue with me due to everyone having different opinions and beliefs, but the donor government and aid organisations still have a huge part to play when it comes to aid e.g they provide money for institutions and many more. So, in essence, what I am trying to say is the local community should have the most say, and the donor government and aid organisations should listen and provide for their needs, as this will lead to rapid development in their community. Thank You.
I think local communities should have the most say because they are closer to the people and understand what is really going on. They hear problems directly instead of through reports or statistics, and sometimes they are even going through the same struggles themselves. Because of this, it is easier for them to know what needs to be done and to act faster.
This matters a lot in rural areas, especially places with limited technology. Many people in these areas do not have easy ways to contact the government, such as the internet or reliable transportation. Even when they manage to speak up, their problems can be ignored because they are seen as too small or not important enough. Some communities are overlooked simply because they do not have large populations or strong political influence. Giving local communities more power helps make sure these people are not forgotten and that they get the aid they need.
I personally believe that there should be no perfect decider unlike what often happens which is that the rich government deciding mostly on their own.
I think local government and civil societies in recipient countries should co-decide not just being consulted because they know:
1. What they actually need, not just what looks good on donors' press release.
2. The groups that are being missed out whether women, or minorities.
I also believe that independent experts like public health experts, economists and humanitarian agencies should also be involved in the decision making of where aid should go because they know what saves lives per dollar right now , they also know what prevent future crisis than just reacting to them. I also think donor countries should ensure transparency, and prevent corruption.
In conclusion, I personally believe that aid should go to where it does the most good not where it buys influence or make a donor government look generous or tough.
Local communities should have the most say in how aid is spent because they best understand their own needs. People living with problems of disaster, conflict or maybe poverty know which problems are most urgent and which solutions might work. Giving communities rather than outsiders control builds trust and long-term success. And giving outsiders the opportunity to make decisions can make them waste the aid on projects that do not fit the local priorities at that time. Ensuring aid supports sustainable development shaped by local knowledge and experience. Thank You.
Alright, from my own view of point I would say that when it comes to seeing how aid is spent, local government should typically have the most say in it. The local government have much better understanding on communities main concern , cultural context and also needs. Local authorities are head on connected to individuals who will be affected by the aids projects.
Donor government and non government organisations also have a say, donor government provide resources and have liability requirements, while the NGOs bring experience and skill. Nevertheless the decision making power are hosted by the outsiders, there a risks that aid effort might not match the legitimate needs on ground or foundation.
Ideally the process should be team oriented. It helps ensue that aid is both efficient and meaningful to the people it's meant to help.
I think that local communities should have the most say because only they really understand their needs and pains. For example, a research study that I did shows that in 2010, the Haiti earthquake shows how poorly aid can be controlled because many were sent out without local planning or consideration, and some resources were unused and wasted this shows that aid decisions really need local leadership. However, other might argue that wealthy donors should decide were aid goes because they are the ones funding the aid, but I think that if donor countries decide everything, then aid becomes a form of control and a tool of power not support and compassion and people living in poverty know their needs best.
From my prespective, local communities should have the most say in how aid is spent since they are aware of the reasons why they are in need of financial aid as well as of the repercussions following their not receiving the necessary funds. To be more specific, a large propotion of the affluent countries proceed on providing with financial assistance the they consider strategically or geographically significant. Another example is that governments from wealthy countries are unwilling to fund those who have no resources at their disposal. Finally, from my point of view, a government should not have too muchsay o where the funds will be distributed to since they often intend to make a profit out of the situation.
I think donor governments and local communities should have the most say because the firsts will have experts and the second will have people living in that situation. In addition, I think the best way of deciding is to have different points of view, so every scenario can be properly seen.
Firstly, donor governments should have the right to choose how their money is spent and it can even convince more people to donate. Furthermore, they surely have access to experts' opinions, which should be heard and they should take them into account.
Secondly, local communities are the ones that are experiencing the problem, so they know where is more urgent to invest and help, and also the ways that would be more productive to do so. Moreover, it can reduce the probability of investing where isn't needed and leaving behind who needs it the most.
In conclusion, I believe that donor governments and local communities should be the ones with most say in how to spend the money. This is because of how useful it can be from the point of view of experts and of local people who live with the problem together.
I think it should be left to UN but countries be able to pick sides. I think the UN should be the ones to distribute resources like weapons, food and aid. Genocide is not something individual countries should be able to fund or support.
A strong statement, enterprising _eel - Aid is primarily accepted as food, shelter and clothing. Could you give some examples of where you have seen evidence of weapons being included in aid packages?
No one organization should have the most say, in any matter regarding aid. Truthfully, it should be up to the decision of the people themselves, the communities that would require the aid the most. Although it is fundamentally important that the donor governments & NGO's get a say into where their funding goes, it is also imperative to allow for other local, more personal institutions to have a say.
A common occurrence is that foreign governments do not always understand the circumstances of people they are trying to help. For example, in the 1950's-60's the US food for peace, created by Dwight D. Eisenhower, in attempt to provide aid to India, Pakistan and Indonesia to support the country agriculturally. But rather than benefit the nations and the communities the aid was meant to support, it had the inverse effect of bankrupting thousands of local farmers & restricted the development of agriculture in the nations for decades.
However, when local municipalities are in charge of request & allocation, it is likely to be far more effective as the local governments know their local people, more. Through local meetings, people are able to describe the hardships & the challenges that they face down to specifics, and through this, effective and intentional support can be granted that actually benefits the people.
All in all, it is beneficial to have multiple voices in aid are valuable, the core priority is determine who needs support and how to best deliver it, of which is best achieved by asking the people themselves.
I think local communities should be given the most input on how aid is spent because aid is meant to help the local community, not the governments or organisations funding it. If this is done far from these communities, it may lead to a waste of funds on things that are not necessarily needed by these communities. Based on what I read from different news articles presented by BBC and The Guardian news, it is clear that aid is more effective if led by local communities because they know the needs of their own community. However, it has always been cited by some individuals that governments should be given the required control because they fund this aid and wish to be accountable for it.
I Think that the people who are actually affected by a crisis should have the biggest say in where did goes while government far away might have the money and resources to help they often do not understand the specific needs of local community as well as the people live there do
IF decisions are only made my people in distant countries the aid might be wasted on things that aren't truly needed for example of a community might need clean water systems more than they need food shipment but a distant government couldn't know that without asking I believe that aid should be a partnership international government should prove the funding but local leaders and citizens should be the ones to direct it in ensures that the help is respectful useful and actually change lives for the better . thank you
I think government should have the say because they rule over the people but they shouldn't do what they thinks as a good government would be kind loving and open an ear to there fellow people so communities schools should have a part of the say. But luckily NGO's use the things they have and try to live out social and mental care giving the needy help. I have seen that they help environmental help for example flooding in area's they'll help people bring there lives back together. However others might argue NGO's or not the answer and local communities should say what they need as they are a group and can decide what they need for example health-care and et cetera. I agree with mirthful cloudberry as Doner Governments should have a say as they provide lots of money and sustain the projects keeping people loved and cared for. I agree with dynamic turbine as no is the best for the job and I think it should be split so it is fair but NGO's should do it as they dedicate there whole life to help other survive monstrosities and earthly events.
i think that the non-governmental aid organisations (NGAO) as well as the local communities as they have nothing to lose, just lives to win. having a government control a charity is like giving cat food to a dog, having feeling towards povertated people waiting for the aid to arrive.
by having no purpose either than to save others, you create the perfect envirounment for developing countries by getting aid such as: money, food, water, medical care, help in building infrastructure, agricultural training, education and many more. as a citizen of a well-developed country, i feel that these are just basics that any country has, but the painful truth is that these essentials aren't easy to develop if you are still building the country.
other countries still need aid even though they were around for decades, this is because they might be politically down or experiencing a financial meltdown, even a war could lead to needing these essentials, so the only ones who can help are the NGAO as they aren't ruled by any political rule, stating that they shouldn't help a specific countries, so they help everyone as they exist in nearly all the countries of the globe.
i think that the local communities and NGAO should be the ones resposible for international aid.
I think that donor governments should have the most power when it comes to aid decisions because they ensure accountability with the funds and where they go. Donor control helps to ensure that funds are not misappropriated or misdirected by the receiving governments. This can be taken advantage of, especially in a weak/corrupted government, if they need quick funds and are not looking at the bigger future.
Some people might argue that a donor-based approach can be used not in the locals' favour. Donor governments and their priorities can often overshadow the locals' needs, resulting in the reduction of independence/sovereignty coming from the nation receiving these funds.
Though this logic makes sense, we need donors who will make decisions for the good of the overall country with minimal bias, and not just for a certain area/community. If we are giving aid, we need to make sure our economy/welfare are stable, and if we only support the needs/wants of any local community, the rest of the country could fall out of balance.
I think local communities should have the most say in how aid is spent because they understand their own needs better than governments or organization far away. People living through a crisis know what is most urgent, whether it is food, clean water, healthcare, or rebuilding homes. If local voices are ignored, aid can sometimes be wasted or fail to reach the people who need it most.
I have read in reports from the United Nations and the BBC that humanitarian groups are increasingly trying to work with local partners, because aid is more effective when communities are involved in decisions. This connects to wider topics like representation and the idea that those most affected by decisions should have a voice; similar to debated about democracy and "no taxation without representation"
However, others might argue that donor governments or large NGOs should have the most say because they provide the funding and may have more experience managing resources and preventing corruption. They might believe outside control ensures aid is distributed fairly and efficiently.
Overall, I think the best approach is when local communities lead, while governments and aid organizations support with funding, oversight, and expertise.
I think local communities should have the most say in how aid is spent because they are the people who are directly affected. They understand their daily problems better than anyone else. For example, a community might need clean water more than a new building, but someone far away might not realise that. If local people are involved in decisions, the aid is more likely to solve real problems.
I have read on BBC News that aid projects are often more successful when local communities help plan them. In some reports about disaster relief, experts explained that when people in the area are included in decision-making, the projects last longer and are more useful. This shows that listening to local voices can make aid more effective.
However, some people argue that donor governments should have the most say because they are the ones giving the money. They may want to make sure it is spent carefully and not wasted. Others think non-government aid organisations should decide because they have experience managing large projects and helping many countries.
In my opinion, donor governments and aid organisations are important, but local communities should have the strongest voice. They know their own needs best, and aid should be about helping people in ways that truly improve their lives.
MUCH TARGETED aid is an answer to where it is needed, and it is at this point that politics, logistics, and human empathy collide with one another in ways both rational and illogical. To get it right, it is no longer an approach of "he who has the gold makes the rules." It is instead ensured that, expert decision-making is no longer confined to someone sitting in a distant boardroom, but it is at ground level and at the precise point where cultural intelligence dictates what is actually needed. This is where, if external aid is dictated rather than arrived at with the input of local decision-makers and groups, we encounter white elephants: beautiful buildings with no functional value to the populations living alongside them. It is also at this point and with input being given and decision-making being distributed to those actually needing such aid that they become stakeholders in what is actually being distributed.
I think local communities should have the most say in how aid is spent. They know the real problems and what people need first. Donor governments and NGOs should listen to them and help with money and skills, but not decide from far away.
I reckon that local communities should be the one who have the say throughout the whole aid and support process , because local communities are the ones who are suffering and serving through conflicts ; even if its war,starvation or even lack of hospitality they will still tell the true tale purely from their heart . Local communities are the ones who are at risk of survival and they will make sure to provide the right amount support for xxxfrf survival needs. Though sometimes local communities can be pressured to speak lies by governments
Donor governments may be the ones providing aid ,yet they do not have the experience nor suffering that the locals have gone though ,as they live a life of luxury where they are fed with½of a golden spoon alongside that the country's financial situation may not be the same as the one suffering meaning it may decrease the amount of support being given as they don't think it is "necessary". Yet the donor government may have gone to a similar state that the other country is going to so they can have a picture of their situation in mind meaning they can understand their needs, or just simply educate themselves by looking up articles and investigating for themselves how the country is impacted on .
Non-donor countries are simply not part of the aid process and are likely not educated about the state of the country being affected so there is no need to involve it in the situation or have a say in such thing. However non-donor goverments have gone though similar situations or even have investigated the suffering countries local state.
I think local communities should have the most say because they really understand citizens' needs, culture and priorities better than donor governments or large organisations, which can make aid more effective because of funding and experience; or less effective due to slow decisions they make.
I have read that some local groups are often more efficient and culturally aware. "The Guardian" explains that a lot of foreign aid is still controlled by richer countries and large international organisations rather than the local communities, which could help more. It also says that local communities often understand the country's problems and culture, so they could make aid much more effective if they had more power and funding.
However, others might argue that donor governments or non-government aid agencies should have the most influence over population because they can provide most of the funding and have experience, stability, resources, and the need to manage large projects and make sure that money is spent responsibly.
I believe local communities should have the biggest voice in how aid is spent because they live with the problem every day. They are not reading about it in reports. This is their real life. When decisions are made by governments or organisations far away, they are often based on numbers, not reality. Numbers do not show what is urgent and what can wait. Local people do. They know if clean water matters more than a new building, or if jobs are more important than short-term projects.
Aid sometimes fails because it does not match what communities actually need. The Guardian reported cases where donors funded projects that looked good on paper but failed in real life, such as buildings that could not be maintained or equipment people were not trained to use. This shows that good intentions are not enough when local voices are ignored.
As an Egyptian, this issue feels personal. In many developing countries, communities are talked about, but rarely talked to. Decisions are made for them, not with them. When local people are involved, aid becomes more effective and sustainable because they feel ownership and adapt it to their culture and needs.
Some argue that donor governments or organisations should have the most say because they provide funding and experience. This is reasonable, as accountability matters. However, experience does not equal understanding local realities.
Aid works best when local communities lead the discussion and international organisations support them with resources and expertise, creating long-lasting change instead of short-term solutions.
Aid decisions directly impact the communities they're for, so I believe local communities should have the most say in allocating resources. I have seen several articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where international aid from external United Nations (UN) committees has been blocked by Israeli forces. Several governments have expressed their perspectives on this conflict; however, local communities are often censored from the media, making it harder to communicate their concerns and actual living situation. In this case, within the nation, the local community suffers the most, which, from an empathetic standpoint, is the exact reason requests and distribution should be handled by the people.
However, others might argue that the donor governments are most likely to be successful in their excursions. I do agree that as a donor government, they may have better technology that allows them to maneuver the landscape and get through to the communities that need it most. Unfortunately, from far away, the severity of a situation is harder to tell, and more likely than not, a donor government won't satisfy the majority of a community when distributing.
All in all, local communities are more fit to decide how monetary and physical aid is spent and distributed.
I think local communities should have the say when it comes to where Aid is delivered and in what for. I say this because knowing comes from living it. Local communities members live it every day and know where they struggle and where they thrive. Governments often have a stereotype when it comes to Aid these are the category's like food, clothes, housing. But what about If there is a pressing issue with Youth sports around their town or village. I have seen that in Yemen local leaders have blocked off roads because their government is no listening to them and what they need. Others could argue that the governments are just trying to help and don't have enough knowledge of the facts and just want to help. This may be true but goverments need to know what is going on around their country. In conclusion governments need to know more issues about their villages than the stereotypes and adapt to that as needed.
I think that the worst person to chose where aid goes is a nations main goverment, the desicion should be spread up into smaller parts of a nation, like states in the case of the USA, even though that is also a bit to large.
The best case scenario would be if 7 - 8 cities/local towns got to decide where aid goes. I think this would be better because the local goverment is closwr to the people and know exactly what they need.
Of course this would work in a perfect world but in practice it would be hard, because of course, politicians rarely ever actualy care about the people and only give them the bare minimum.
Thanks peaceful_tomato, out of interest, what makes you believe politicians are only interesting in giving "the bare minimum"?
A lot of politicians want to put the city/town budget into investments that will make thr town or them more money, like tourism. Rather then investing in the beterment of lives of the people.
I think it should not be controlled just by the government because my opinion is to let other people like leaders
to also take control of our community. It will help people and animals over the world to make the Earth better. However, some people may argue about other people's opinions and decisions being different but it's okay to have different opinions. I think that local communties should have the most say because everyone in our community should help to take care of our enviroment like taking care of animals by banning plastic from getting into the ocean. The government and other community representives should take care of our community better.
I believe that local communities and individuals that donate to aid organisations, should have the most say in where the money is spent. Their primary motivation is to help others without expecting personal gain, which allows for fairer decision-making. However, research indicates that the brain fully develops in our early 20's and maturity peaks in our early 30's, suggesting that age should be a factor when making influential decisions. Furthermore, empowering local communities to have more input can generate a wider range of opinions and solutions, drawing on the collective knowledge of that community. This is because, local communities posses a deeper understanding of their own needs than broader organisations. They are aware of their priorities because they witness daily realities, enabling them to ensure the aid is utilised effectively and not misused.
The local communities that are in need of aid are the ones who should have the most say oh how the funding is spent. This allowed for the funding to be allocated to the right causes, the most critical and urgent aid needed. Funding can be used optimally if the goverment takes account of the locals thoughts about problems around them that should be urgently fixed first. In NTT, Indonesia---a 10 year old child was given immense pressure for not being able to buy school supplies that only costs Rp 10.000 (60 cents), his mom couldnt afford it because she was a single mother. 60 cents---and the goverment couldnt give this child a solution. This shows the flaw in the goverments allocation in funding, they instead choose to do a free food programme for schools, which has been shown to be VERY ineffective, even giving food poisoning to students in a recent case in West Borneo (detik.com), it can go as for as taking lives with them. The amount of money that has been spent on this programme could've been used to invest in underdeveloped schools and fix major problems in the educational field, INCLUDING providing free school supplies to children in need. The Indonesian Constitution pledged for FREE education to all children---providing for supplies in one of many steps they can do. By actually seeing what the people need, you can work out the best decision that will positively impact communities.
Hi i am understanding_effort
I think local communities should have the most say in how aid is spent because they understand their own problems better than governments or organisations that are far away.
Local people know what they truly need, whether it is clean water, healthcare, education, or jobs. When communities are involved in decisions, aid is more effective and less likely to be wasted.
I have read in The Guardian that aid projects are more successful when local people are included in planning and decision-making, as they help ensure the money is used in a practical and sustainable way.
However, others might argue that donor governments or non-government aid organisations should have the most say because they provide the funding and have experience managing large aid projects. They may also want to make sure the money is spent responsibly.
Despite this, I believe local communities should play the biggest role, as aid is meant to help them directly, and their voices are essential for long-term success.
I think local communities should have the most say because they are closest to daily challenges and they understand their own needs better than others. They know exactly what they need to be done first and what can wait. Also, if local communities are able to take decisions that shape their own environment, this would build trust and sustainability. Donor governments and non-government aid organizations know about general or common problems but don't know other complex problems inside the place like traffic jams or unclean water; these problems are only faced by people living in this place.
I have read on the BBC that in 2023, the BBC discovered how local organizations in East Africa were working hard to solve community problems like drought. It mentioned that when the aid was controlled by the local community, responses were faster and effective. I also read that women could distribute food and water better than donor governments as they know who are really in need.
However, others might argue that local communities could take wrong decisions or be biased, stopping some people to have a voice in how the aid is spent. They may also believe that local governments may not be experienced enough to have a say in how aid is spent.
I think aid decisions should not control by only one or two groups. The governments sometimes don’t take aid’s problem serious and some governments just want to “look good” in front of other people or just want to take profit from those who are in needs. They are too far to see all the people who is really in need and just care about themselves. NGOs help a lot of people and yes they don’t really care about money and just truly want to help but sometimes NGOs can’t feel what the locals really feels. The local communities can also be greedy by wanting things that aren’t really necessary.
So for me, I think who should have the most say is the NGOs but they should hear what the local communities think and for the government, they should support NGOs and the local communities.
In my opinion I think that Health professionals should be incharge of AID because they will have a better idea of healthcare and what is most critically needed, as they would be interacting with patients and people all the time, and therefore able to give the community and the country what they need. With all that said AID isn't just about health care... but includes other aspects like repairing buildings and damages after floods etc. So Aid would also go into that, in this case maybe the government should cooperate with processionals from different careers, like health, agriculture and military :)
I believe the greatest influence in how international aid money is spent needs to be done at the local community level, as they know what they need best.
Much of the time, governments and international organizations design programs around broad data and policy priorities, while the communities live the daily realities those policies seek to impact. Whenever decisions about aid are taken far from the people impacted, resources risk answering theoretical problems rather than practical ones.
Development studies have shown that projects involving local participation, particularly in areas such as education, sanitation, and disaster recovery-is much more durable, enjoying longer life spans and success rates. Where communities help design solutions, they are more likely to trust, maintain, and adapt those programmes over time. This transforms aid from temporary relief into long-term resilience
Others may feel, however, that ultimate control should rest with donor governments and international organizations, given that they provide the funding and technical expertise. That is a fair concern.
The most effective compromise, however, may not be to make a choice between one group or another but to acknowledge that influence should be weighted toward those who are most directly affected. Donors and NGOs can bring in funding, knowledge, and structure, but local communities give context, cultural understanding, and realistic priorities. Without them, aid can become efficient in its planning while ineffective in actual impact.
I believe the greatest influence in how international aid money is spent needs to be done at the local community level, as they know what they need best.
Much of the time, governments and international organizations design programs around broad data and policy priorities, while the communities live the daily realities those policies seek to impact. Whenever decisions about aid are taken far from the people impacted, resources risk answering theoretical problems rather than practical ones.
Development studies have shown that projects involving local participation, particularly in areas such as education, sanitation, and disaster recovery-is much more durable, enjoying longer life spans and success rates. Where communities help design solutions, they are more likely to trust, maintain, and adapt those programmes over time. This transforms aid from temporary relief into long-term resilience
Others may feel, however, that ultimate control should rest with donor governments and international organizations, given that they provide the funding and technical expertise. That is a fair concern.
The most effective compromise, however, may not be to make a choice between one group or another but to acknowledge that influence should be weighted toward those who are most directly affected. Donors and NGOs can bring in funding, knowledge, and structure, but local communities give context, cultural understanding, and realistic priorities. Without them, aid can become efficient in its planning while ineffective in actual impact.
While some people may not agree on my opinion, I think that all 3 groups should partake in how aid is spent. But, not all 3 partake in the same way and amount.
In my opinion, donor governments should be the role of funding. Especially when a population is obligated to pay for taxes, unlike non-profit organisations that rely on voluntary donations. In the United States, the result of taxes alone in 2025 was approximately $1.07 trillion. (source: fiscaldata.treasury.gov)
If donor governments deny to provide enough or any funding, that is where non-profit organisations step in. They provide emergency funding in case, as well as a bridge to connect donor governments and the local communities. When local communities are too small or do not have enough authority to invite donor governments, non-profit organisations can be a voice to spread awareness in order to support local communities aswell. (example: global.tzuchi.org)
What do the local communities do? Well, they are the main source of what we should do. When it comes to local, it means that they are located near the problem and know what is happening directly. The problem with local communities, are that they may have insufficient funding or equipment to solve the problem. Multiple times, rural areas in less advanced countries fail to support ill residents on their own. (source: wfp.org)
To conclude though, non-profit organisations still have the most say since they can reach both groups--but I can say that all 3 groups have their own way of participating.
I think it should be both the local communities and the government with the most say. I think it should be a mix because communities know what aid they need like food, water, roads, or medicine. On the other hand the government can help with overspending and finance over the aid so the people don't overspend the money for aid. The local communities can also help with evenly distributing resources so people don't die, get sick, go starving, or go thirsty because there was not enough aid for all of them. in conclusion a local and government would be the best option because a local community can bring the best option for the people,and the government could help with funding and budgeting.
Local communities should have the most say in how aid is spent. They live in the area everyday, they understand their biggest problems, and know what solutions would actually work for their neighbors and families. When local people get to decide, the help is more likely to last a long time and make positive changes. Donor governments provide the money and want to be sure it is spent carefully, follows their rules, and shows good results to their own taxpayers. NGOs (non-government organizations) are good at delivering aid quickly, bringing expert knowledge, and working in tough places. However, when outsiders make all the big decisions, projects sometimes fail, waste money or don't match what people truly need. Many experts today agree that aid works much better when local communities lead the planning and choices.This approach it called "locally led aid," Donor governments and NGOS should give strong support, share their skills, and provide careful oversight, but the main control should belong to people who will live with the results everyday.
I think that government organisations should actually have the most say in how aid is distributed because the government has been voted by the people to actually provide for their needs which includes sending aids to areas that need it. In a country where the government is transparent, the government would actually said aid to the areas that need it the most. If it were left to the citizens and other non-government, I don't think that aid will be sent to the right place because the citizens and non-government organisations might actually be greedy in sharing the aid. By saying "greedy", I mean that the sharing would not be fair because everybody may want aid for his region and forget about the laces that really need it.
However, others may think that the government is very biased. I may partially agree with them but I think that any country who practice a democratic system of government can choose the right leader that is transparent. All that they have to do is trust the government.
I think local communities should have the most say because they are the ones that actually need the aid. Most times, they are not well developed and need funding and help in providing for their inhabitants.
Also, people in local communities know the pressing needs of their communities.
An example of a failed international community aid due to the government's decision is the Turkana fish factory. The Norwegian government (NORAD) decided to fund a $22 million dollar project in the 1970s and 80s. They didn't ask the community about their pressing needs, but instead, they just decided to embark on a project of opening a fish factory in a community where fish farming was looked down upon. If the Norwegian government had asked the local community about their pressing needs, the project might not have been a failure. Because at that point in time, the local community suffered persistent drought and famine.
I consider that local communities should have the most say because people or us know what we need better than anyone. If we are talking about international aid, I understand that governments are the ones who manage it. However, if we are talking about our own country and mainly our cities and villages, local communities should be the ones who decide it. This can be exemplified by a flooding caused by a weather phenomenon in lots of parts of Valencia here in Spain. It destroyed houses, bridges, shopping malls, etc. The government kept saying that they needed food and clothes and they sent them. Nevertheless, what people really needed was help to clean the streets, houses, more police and more cleaning trucks.
This shows that we are who really know what we need in this kind of situations, and not someone which is not involved at all.
To me, local communities should have the most say. I say this because aid fails when it treats people PEOPLE as problems to be solved instead of partners with solutions to treat the actual problem. Those who are in the local communities leave with the consequences long after donors and NGO's have gone, therefore, they should have the strongest say in this. When or if the communities lead, they will render durable and effective aid but if the risk of sidelining them occurs, then this aid turns into a costly guesswork.
Aid should be considered to last rather than making it an expensive experiment. Real change does not come from the money outside or expertise alone, rather, it comes from shifting power to those who have to live with the results.
Aid will only last when the individuals it serves have the power to guide it. This is why I am in FULL support of the local communities should have the MOST say on how aid it spent.
hello topical talkers
I think that the country should pick were the aid goes because it's the county's money so they pick were the money goes.People know that some country's can lie and use the money for something else like buy more stuff that they don't need for there country.
thank you
mirthful pineapple.
Aid is meant to help the people who are directly affected, so local communities should have the strongest voice in how it is spent. They understand their real needs, culture, and daily challenges better than anyone far away. When communities are involved, aid is more likely to solve real problems instead of wasting money on projects that do not fit the situation.
However, donor governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) still play an important role. Donor governments provide the funding, so they need to ensure the money is used responsibly. NGOs often have experience, trained workers, and systems that help deliver aid effectively and fairly.
The best solution is shared decision-making. Local communities should guide priorities and needs, while NGOs manage implementation and donor governments provide oversight and funding. This balance makes aid more effective, respectful, and sustainable in the long term.
I honestly feel that donor governments should have the most say because these are wealthy nations or countries who uses the funds of taxpayers to promote development, economic growth and provide HUMANITARIAN AID. So I feel that as far as they have taken it as a responsibility to promote all these programs, they know how best, where best and how best aid should be spent. And to know this it brings about a lot of research and gathering of facts, and local communities wouldn't really be seen to be in the best suitable situation. Yes local communities might know what they are urgently in need of, but they may not really know the current state of neighbouring societies or even some hidden parts of their own society. We spoke on opinions or the right answers as of last week, and I was able to understand that opinions should be respected and heard, but the right answers are usually preferred due to what is in context or the situation it needs to be applied.
I think that due to the UK being a democracy with an elected leader our government should have the most power over deciding where our international aid is distributed. Between countries in poverty and conflict, the government has the most access to diplomatic information across the world which inevitably leads to decision making.
Although the government is supposed to represent the publics views, I believe that sometimes they do not always make the most ethically correct decisions and they prioritise giving aid to countries they know they can benefit from in the future.
Going forwards I believe that to benefit all people we should stop prioritising countries that can benefit us and start making the world a better place by helping everyone.
In my opinion, I feel that local communities should have the most say in where aid goes. The local community is the closest to the people, and every community has a particular ailment based on what they have and what they don't. The authorities in charge of the local community should be in total control of where the aid that is being given goes to.
Donor countries should also have a say, because after all, they are the supporters and should choose who and where to support.
I think it shouldn ´t be decided by only one group. Local Communities are important because they realy know what they need, but also the governments should have a say, because they plan long-term development (as mirthful_cloudberry already mentioned). I think only the groups together can make sure, that aid is used the right and in the most useful way.
I think that the countries that are sending aid should be for everybody to vote on but not everybody could vote on a bad thing
Hello, I am enchanted camel and from my point of view, local citizens should have the most say on aid decisions because they are more conscious about people's needs and what is that they care or need the most.
From my perspective, governments should not hace nearly any say in how the aid is spent, as the money given to the poor is taken to the local citizens.
Goverments wold mostly want to beneficiate themselves, whereas ordinary people would be more empathetic with the people who need help, deciding what is better for them as well as for ourselves as a country.
Others might disagree with me, because it is true that there are also people who would want to keep some of the money or aids for themselves, but from my perspective, we are all humans and most of us would like to be together in peace as a country, city or group.
Hello! I think where aid goes should be decide by humanitarian organizations. Because they see the situation directly,collect real data,and can identify the most urgent cases quickly.Also I think local goverments should also participate because they are responsible for their population and understand national systems.
Well hello there! I'm observant_banana! I think donor governments should have the most say because the donor government is a national government that provides lots of financial support. I have seen news about the donor government on Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) that stated about how the donor government had funded money to families in that country as well as gave some aid to other families too. However, others might argue that non-government aid organisations (NGOS) should have the most say because they can operate without direct government control. So, what I mean by that is that they do not need government control to provide aid, services, and advocacy for public good. Just because NGOS do not need government control to do that doesn't mean that donor governments can't have most of the say. Donor governments are member countries that can provide, manage, and report on foreign aid. So, with that kind of power they should have most say to control international aid, specific projects, and financial assistance. In conclusion, this is why I think that the donor governments should have most say.
I think local communities should have the most say. Local communities know more about the communities. They know what the people need and other stuff. Local communities deal with the problems every day, so they understand what needs urgent attention and what solutions will actually work. Donor governments, and non-government aid organisations won’t know what is happening in the area because they don’t live there so aid might not fix the problem. In my opinion local communities have a better chance to fix the problem because they live in that area and they know what to do.
I think local communities should have the most say in how aid is spent. The main reason is that the people living in a crisis or a developing area understand their own needs better than anyone else, as they are the people who are experiencing it. For example a government far away might think a state needs new laptops, but the local communities would rather need more clean water. I also think that when local people lead projects, the results last longer, as they know what they need.
However, some people argue that donor governments should have the most say in how aid is spent. As they believe that it is their taxpayer’s money, they must make sure it is not wasted or lost to corruption.
On the other hand, others think non-government aid organisations should have the most say in how aid is spent and think that it’s the best choice because they have experts in most of the fields like doctors and engineers who know how to handle big emergencies quickly.
In a conclusion, while donor governments provide the funds and non-government aid organisations provide the expertise, the final decisions should belong to the local communities, as they are the ones who will affect the most. Giving them the power to choose ensures that the aid is truly helpful for the long term.
I think, local communities should have the most say, because they are the ones getting the aid, and who know best what is needed, such as food, water, vaccines for diseases among others.
I have seen this in an article which shows a problem with food waste in Chile, and because of these, the Despensa Social allows them to choose the products they need, such as food and basic hygiene items.
The question of who should have the most say in how aid is spent is at the heart of the "localization" debate, with growing consensus pointing toward local communities, local leaders, and national NGOs as the primary decision-makers. While donor governments and international agencies provide the necessary funding, they often lack the context to understand immediate, urgent needs.
Local communities are best positioned to determine priorities because they live with the consequences of the decisions and understand the most urgent problems, whether they be clean water, food, or medical care. When aid decisions are made exclusively by foreign donors, resources risk being wasted on, or mismatched with, the actual needs of the recipients
However, the most effective approach is often described as a partnership rather than a total handover. In this model, local actors guide the priorities to ensure relevance, while international partners (donors, UN, international NGOs) provide technical expertise, accountability, and the logistical capacity to manage large-scale funding. In short, aid is most effective when those who pay for it work closely with those who are meant to benefit from it, with the latter having the final say in the priorities.
Who should decide where aid goes? The people who are experienced in aid relief and global issues. By this, I mean the NGOs and UN agencies. You might think, " Why not the government? And I have one answer to that: each government has biases towards different countries, and we need to make sure those biases aren't affecting people in need of aid. According to the International Rescue Committee, the following countries are in dire need of Aid are: Sudan, Gaza, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Syria. In these places, people are facing mass displacement, food insecurity, and armed conflict, and are currently having issues delivering aid. These key issues are impact everyone, whether that is children going hungry or women and girls feeling like there rights have been taken away.
In huge issues like global aid or Humanitarian crises, you might feel hopeless or that you can't do anything. Though it might be hard to be a kid and want to help make change, it sure isn't impossible. For me, as someone who lives in canada I have found multiple organizations that will help give you a chance to join in and help. These organizations in canada at least, but most of these would also be in the res tor the world, Canadian Red Cross, CanadaHelps, and GlobalMedic. You CAN make an impact and help those in need, and these organizations are here to help.
I believe that where aid goes should be up to the donor. One reason why I say this is because countries are donating without expecting anything in return, so they should at least get a say of where the resources go.
Most countries that donate to international aid have plans to help countries in need of aid. I feel like if I donated to something I would like to know where my resources are going.For example ,say that redewood farm is donating to greeny grocery store in need of fresh produce but instead of going to that greeny grocery store it goes to the grocery store that already has more than enough resources. How do you think that red wood farm's owner feels ? If I were The owner of redwood farm I would be mad that my resources went to another country that had enough resources
Some countries need medical resources,those are very important.I say this because if a country needs medical resources and doesn't get the resources that they need then this can cause an outbreak.
To conclude this is why I believe that where aids go should be up to the donor.
I think that local communities have the most saying where aid goes because they understand their urgent needs. I say this because people in the area of the communities know the problems that are most urgent. Far from the donor government and aid organizations aren’t close at all to care for urgent needs. Another reason I feel this way is because they are closer to challenges in life. For instance, many car crashes and houses on fire. However, the donor government and the organizations don;t have those things in their everyday life. Though, there are some ups-and-downs. The downs being that people may be getting more aid may lead to conflict and favoritism. And, the goods being if a structure or a building breaks you could use aid to repair it. So, instead of choosing the other options I say that you let local communities have the most saying of where aid goes today!
Hello topical talkers! Aid is a big thing between Countries,Governments,and even citizens.But who or what shall decide where the aid goes to? I think Donor Governments should have the most say because Donor Governments donates to countries,organizations, and even people. So Donor Governments know who and what to donate to, Therefore they know what countries need aid because they specialize in these types of situations. However, others might argue that “Local communities shall have the most say on who or what to donate to because we live in these types of conditions,we know more about this more than anybody!”.Donor Governments donate daily to people in need and have experience helping with some of the conditions they are donating for. So this is why I think Donor Governments should have the most say on who shall the aid go to.
In my opinion, country leaders should be the ones to decide where the aid goes. My reasoning for this is most countries are democracies, meaning that the people of the country voted on the leader and so they should agree with the decisions that the leader has made.
However, I am aware that some countries are not democracies. There are countries that are religious regimes, absolute monarchies and authoritarian states. The people of these countries might not agree that the country leaders should be the ones who decide where the aid should go.
It is true that many countries that are not democracies such as South Sudan, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Syria etc. are the countries in need of aid. It is not every country that is not a democracy that is in need of aid but it is true that many of them are.
Country leaders will have specific sectors of the government to handle the distribution of aid based off of situations going on in the world at specific times.
The people who work in these sectors will know which countries are in need of things like healthcare, clean water, clothes and what is best to send to help people in every way possible.
I think that local communities should have the most say because they are the ones who are actually receiving,using and experiencing the aid that is being provided to them. Many governments that provide countries with aid actually control and tell the other country where the aid should go. Many wealthy organisations and governments make assumptions about what they think the local communities need,not actually taking consideration and asking the people living in those communities what they need.
By involving local communities, you are giving them a voice that is able to be heard about what is really needed in that community,because often they aren't always heard enough. By involving local communities, you can help countries to get more effective aid that will actually benefit local communities experiencing a crisis. This reduces the problem of ineffective aid that wastes a country's time and precious money and this solves the problem much quicker.
So, in conclusion if we want a democracy and want to really help countries in need then we should involve local communities more,because their voice matters and because they are on the receiving end of the national aid. National Organisations and donor Governments as well as non-government Organisations should still have a part to play in this as they provide the funds for national aid,but they shouldn't have the main say, they should let the people have the main say and make decisions, because not all of them are living in the local communities and don't fully know their situation. This can improve national aid in the future.
Hello frank_jouralist here,in my opinion I believe that communities or other local places in the country should decide where the aid goes.This because they know more who needs the aid because they have people in there community which have problems which need aid to be fix.For example if a person or a group or the whole community have a problem they can come together to fix the problem . Another example is that people in communities know when there is a problem because they live in their community everyday unlike rich people and important ones.So they know what to fix so they should be the one who chooses where the aid should go.But sometimes government can also decide where the aid goes because they are the one who helps or supply the military so the can defend their country.This is because if the military needs supply the communities don't know that .So it is the governments job to supply the military with the needed supplies to win the war. Lastly communities also support the country ,but if communities have a problem like floods they can't support their family ,nor work.This can lead to less malfunctions for creating weapons and things we need like food to.To sum it all up, this is why I think personaly that people in communities should be the ones to decide where the aid goes.
the people that live in the country should because they're the ones that may also need supplies in the future. So they should have an opinion on who and how much should be given the option to vote. And whatever the two majority votes are there should be another vote later on to vote what the two topped picks. And lets all be honest we would all want to be able to vote on this.
I think the citizens should have the most say because if we are citizens in this country and some of us fight for this country we should have control of what happens, and who we'll give aid to. Some people think that the government should choose who we give aid to, but they're wrong. Because sometimes they choose the wrong country or people just. It matters who we give aid to because sometimes it can hurt us too. there are some areas where people need more help then others. They may need money for homes, food, water,and schools.
I think local communities should have the most say in how aid is spent because, unlike politicians, they have tangible experience of their own cultural and economic surroundings. This means they can think of the best methods to achieve success when on a limited budget or when facing problems that a local could easily solve. Aid which is mindlessly imposed from outside of a community's border doesn't help as much as aid which is helped by local groups because they can align aid with reality, not fiction, not reports, just cold reality.
A report published by The Guardian (Raising cash for water: why Somalis are bypassing aid agencies in drought crises) showed that local Somali groups were bypassing aid agencies and having better results since they understood clan dynamics which meant aid was delivered with very minimal costs compared to big NGOs.
However, others might argue that donor governments should have a say since they are responsible for funneling their taxpayers' money into aid. They have to make sure this aid is not used for corruption. I believe that aid should not be used leverage, instead, I believe that aid should just open the doors for locals to be their own people and make their own decisions in a joint partnership which lets locals control their own destinies, not the opposite.
I think that communities, and small governments such as town mayors, should be making these decisions.
The main reason I think this is that, if it is up to the big, powerful people in government, they may not actually be thinking about the livelihoods of the people affected by the aid.
In addition, they may be thinking only about how they or their country can gain respect and power, rather than about helping others. This will affect who gets the aid, even if they do need it, and also affect how much the local communities support the greater governments.
Therefore, I believe that since aid can be such an amazing source of help for smaller countries, smaller communities should be able to decide who is getting aid because they can think about what would help them if these communities needed the aid.
Fellow students, esteemed writers,
I think that local communities should make decisions around aid supply expenses as they are the ones most impacted by the issue at hand and therefore fully understand the amount of aid required. I have seen aid supplies delivered to Gaza on emirates news as of February 2026 from Humanitarian Aid and I think that although this is a feasible approach, it would be better to ask exactly what the people there need and then supply them with that. Others might disagree, saying that local communities might overestimate the aid they need, however I think this to be false as people are smarter than to bite the hand that feeds them.
In conclusion, I think that local communities should have a bigger say in the aid they receive, so that aid supplies and spending can be more efficient and easier.
I think that governments should maintain the most influence over aid decisions.
When governments are elected, they are elected based on the wishes of the majority of the public. As such, they should be trusted to make decisions for international aid. If we remove that decision from them, it’s separating the country into divisions, because now people feel their opinion should be debated over despite likely being one sided. It inspires debate, which leads to divides forming within the country and can lead to heavier bias forming. One of the top priorities a country should have is it’s unity, because without the support of the public, the country crumbles. If we gave the decision to local communities, they’d value their own problems above others because many people aren’t as accustomed to weighing supply distribution. If we gave it to donor governments, it gives them the power to rival the government and creates cracks in the relationship of the country officials.
After reading the comments I realized many people think that local communities should be in charge of aid. I changed my mind based on this because I saw a couple comments which weighed both sides, and I realized that I agreed more with the opposite side. As such my opinion was formed off of that.
Instead of giving such a large piece of power to an alternate source, it should simply have a government website for pressing matters in rural areas so the government can allocate help effectively.
In conclusion, Governments should maintain the power, but give local communities more of a say in aid distribution.
I think the local communities should have the most say because They know best what they really need. Donor governments and aid groups are important for money and help, but local lives it , they're the ones living with the results
I think that local communities should have most say. It stands to reason that when it comes disaster response,local communities should be the primary decision -makers, as they possess an intimate understanding of their resident's needs. They are, after all , the ones who know what's truly essential when floods or other crises strike. Consider the UK, for instance, where numerous local organizations played a pivotal role throughout the pandemic, delivering vital supplies like food and medication, and providing much-needed telephone support, especially in the early stages. Consequently, the government would be well- served by actively soliciting and incorporating these local insights to refine and enhance their aid initiatives.
I strongly think local communities should have the most definitive say in how aid is spent because they know their own needs and priorities better than anyone else. From my past Model UN experience, I’ve seen that even well-intentioned plans from outside big countries like the US and China can miss key issues if the people affected aren’t involved in decision-making. For example, here in Canada, we focus on inequality for Indeginous People, yet, they don't even have clean water as a necessity to drink yet.
Local input also helps make aid more effective and sustainable. When the communities themselves are part of the planning, resources are used way more efficiently, and programs are more likely to succeed because the people who need the stuff are telling what they actually need.
People with other perspectives will say that donor governments should lead because they manage large budgets and have experience with this type of stuff, but without local guidance or what they need to do/a target, even the most experienced organizations will miss the mark. In my opinion, the best approach is to let local communities have the most say while NGOs provide support, ensuring aid actually helps the people and gives them what they actually need.
I think the government or donor should and should not decide where the money goes because it should be a joint effort. Between the communities leaders and the donors. First of all the people of the community live there they know the behind the scenes and posses the best understanding of their own immediate needs. If it were the government they would most likely read in a report that for example a township needs toilets that flush without water as access to water is limited. But maybe the township has already found a solution to this and actually need help with education.
Aid should be given for specific reasons which should be declared by the community. When the government sets aside money for aid they have to specify what the money is going towards. If they only know the surface level of the problems in the community, the community will be forced to Embezzle the money. Using it for other problems than what was stipulated creating a bigger issue.
To conclude I think a collaboration is best for distributing aid. It is important to hear from the community and their needs but also crucial to hear from government or the NGO who are paying for the improvements.
I think communities and aid organisations should be able to do what they think is right for them and their country, communities should be allowed to have their say when maybe someone is maybe ill or have life threatening injuries and need the help which can help the person and give them the care that they need to keep them safe.
Also, I think aid organisations need to have a say as they all have a profession in working and helping people through a variety of ages and this is why they should have a say because aid organisations like the NHS are working with governments and countries to make their people happier and the country even better.
So many people can have their say on aid including all of us to show together how we want our countries and communities to get the aid and healthcare they need. People should have a voice and speak up for their health and safety as it can help you in ways you may not think.
Health and safety is a key factor of a country’s future economic development with safety of people and businesses of the country and regional territories and reputation in general.
i belive that the govermant should decide where aid goes as long as it is for a good reason or cost.For example they could put aid money towards education or to better health care and shelter.Also they could put to towards the safty of us to the money can go to military.
In my opinion, I think donor aid decision should be decided based in the grassroot communities. This is because those living in the communities are bound by common beliefs, cultures, experiences and common challenges. Thus they really know who is in need since they can reach to one another at any time. If they are to make a decision, that will be a realisable, geniune and upto fate decision. They know the community needs better compared to anyone not even the government since the government might be using second person to reach out to them.
Communities should be given a priority in the check of where donar aid should go
I support the decision and the hearing to have a community have a say before deciding. In Most cases,the government makes rushed decisions to provide donor assistance, which is good but when the phases are analysed sometimes you find that the recipients at that moments are not as needy as another group elsewhere which if time and hearing was given to the ground person, a right beneficiary could be targeted.
I think that local communities should have the biggest say in aiding. Local communities know whether they should aid or not based on their situation like the wealthy or poor. According to the topic it says aid decisions are often made by governments far away from the people affected so the Parliament will not understand the citizens and make wrong decisions and make their country worse. For example Canada specifically funds small, high-impact projects designed and carried out by local organizations in over 120 countries, with approval from Canadian embassies. However, if local communities have the most say then they will not know what to aid and how. On the other hand the donor governments or the non-government aid organisations might have more information about the nations that need help.
This is an essential argument in international development, and every side has a justifiable claim. However, I feel like local communities should have the primary voice in how aid is spent with donor governments and NGO's serving in supportive and supervisory capacities. I say this because the local communities have firsthand knowledge of their needs and are immediately affected by the outcomes. Aid is most effective when it shifts from just 'helping people' to empowering them to take ownership of their own development. For example, a village may need electricity more urgently than a new hospital. Decisions made by others would lead to situations that are uncalled for like wasted resources, or projects that go unused. When communities have a voice in aid allocation, projects become more meaningful and have higher chance of success.
THANK YOU
I think aid descions should not be controlled by one groupe of people specifically. Donors , governments and communities should find an equilibrium solution we’re both parties are satisfied. Local governments are important because they supply communities with healthcare , education , funding treatment and prevention programs . However communities are equally important because they understand local challenges , cultures and stigma. They are often better at reaching vulnerable groups with education and support. When communities lead awareness and outreach while governments supply resources and medical systems response to HIV/AIDS become more practical , trusted and sustainable . Therefore , shared responsibility between communities and governments creates a stronger and more effective approach to controlling and preventing HIV/AIDS.
Local people should have the most say in how aid money is spent because they understand their own needs and problems better than anyone else. This helps make sure that the aid actually helps them in the best way possible. However, donor governments can provide the money and set rules to make sure it’s used properly. Also, non- government organizations can give advice, support, and help with planning and checking the progress.
In my opinion all three should work together, but the ones, with the most influence should be the local communities. When all work together, aid can become more useful, fair and effective.
I think the government have the most say because they know more about aid because if we were to decide we might end up doing something bad that we might not mean to do . It takes a lot of confidence to do aid . I think the local communities should be in charge to because they can decide who needs it most and when they need it so they can do it at the right time so they know when that person needs it and if they need it or not .
I think we should decide where aid goes because the government can only speak their personal point of view like a presidents point of view were we can do a more fair perspective because richer people will have a opinion for that type of person and poorer people will have a different opinion for people like them. I think we should have a vote because if someone’s family is in a country that’s in war they willingly give money but other people will not. If we have a vote then everyone will have a say and it will be fair
If you have any questions please let me know in the comments
Bye topical talkers👋
I think that the people that live in the country should say where the aid should go but I think that they should also have a vote on if it does go to another country or not because some people disagree that it should go to another country because they might need the aid them selves so if it goes to another country then they won't be able to help them selves.
Donations and funding allocation should be decided based on specific needs and circumstances. For example in case of a natural disaster or a war, the governments of other countries should provide the necessary help to aleviate the sufferers and help in reconstructing the distroyed infrastructures. Also, the local communities are aware of the specific needs and where to give priority in funding. So, as I see it, it is a combined effort for the decision-makers to be fair and ready in case of emergency. Finally, it is also imporant the receiving countries to do the right money-management and distribute the aid for the benefit of the citizens and the local communities.
I think non-government aid organisations should have the most to say because they aren’t really influenced by any parties, politicians or the government in general except for corruption . They could organise meetings with other countries to see their opinions and decide on whether to help and how much to help. Non-governmental organisations can help faster and more focused on the needs of the aid receiving country than the government because it also has to focus on other things to and they have more power and global recognition than local communities. However there still is corruption and they could use their power for the wrong things and help criminals.
This is just my opinion on the topic, if you have any questions about what I wrote I will try to answer, or if you have a different opinion.
I think local communities are those that should have the most soy because they look to be who best understand what we need and our rights and responsabilities. Nowadays people in charge of aid gave it to those which they know that will come back in another form,even if in is only a fraction of what was given think,I think is unfair because we must give aid to every that need it(if we can)without expecting anything in return,since there are surely nations that need a lot of help but don't recive it for that reason. So I think local communities will give aid without expecting nothing to those who need it.
I personally believe that local communities should have the most say, since they're deciding for themselves, and they know their needs more than anyone else. In 2023, The Guardian reported that some aid groups sent food during droughts, although the local communities said the needed water acces and support for livestock. This clearly shows that when decisions are made from far away, they are more likely to be misunderstood, and the aid doesn't match what people actually need.
Another reason I believe that local communities should have the most say, is that they're the ones who live with the long term consequences of aid projects in the first place. When decisions are made by people who actually live there near the problem, the money is less likely to be wasted on projects that fail. Local groups know what's important in their environment, so the aid is used in ways that actually help instead of being used on ideas that sound good but then fail right after.