Who should have the most say in how aid is used: the countries giving the aid or the communities receiving it?

In today's society, many countries face a crisis. Economical and humanitarian. Despite us "evolving", there are so many places in the world left in an era of injustice and fear. And there, the safer and more stable western world comes in as aid. But, is it really the "heartly" help they present it as, if they choose how the needy use the help (mostly materialistic)?

On one hand, by having a say in how the ones recieveing aid manage it, they actually gain a somewhat of control over them. They choose in what sectors to help, ones that don't endanger their supremacy, and still appear as saviours. Additionally, they might even win over the communities-in-need's favour, who will feel obliged to reciprocate the gesture in the future. So, they use aid as manipulation and in ways it benefits them more than the actually plagued country.

On the other hand, does the motivation matter if help is still recieved? Even if the ones in power use it for their own whims as well, what is the big deal if people are actually aided? Even in some sectors. And, also, maybe the ones plagued aren't able to manage the aid well. In a state of crisis and despair, their judgement may be clouded. The guidance from another might be advantageous, and, maybe the helper wants to ensure their offer is being well-used.

Both sides have arguments, yet, in my humble opinion the ones recieveing aid should have the first say in how it's used. Because, in the end, they know their needs best. The givers should only mind if it's actually passed on to the recievers who shall then on manage it as they wish.