I appreciate the push for a broader perspective. Given the format and space limitation of a blog, the article already includes sources as links, covering USAID’s budget, structural inefficiencies, and impact, including USAID’s own budget justifications, Devex, Transparency International, CEPR, and OIG investigations.
I am unable to exactly ascertain where your discomfort lies btw. It is not explicit and a bit vague, especially when all the data, program, sectors and service categories are presented.
The inefficiency discussed isn’t incidental but structural. USAID was designed to administer aid, not deliver it directly. That distinction matters because it explains why ~80% of funds are absorbed before reaching beneficiaries.
Regarding USAID’s core mandate, its original design was to channel funds through intermediaries rather than act as a direct aid provider. The article highlights how this structure (the elephant) inherently prioritizes bureaucratic administration, contractor networks, and regulatory overhead, which is why a large percentage of funds never make it to the ground. This isn’t a failure of execution. It is a consequence of how the system was built. Whether that justifies the inefficiency is the real question.
On comparative inefficiencies, it’s true that all large aid organizations face bureaucratic hurdles, but the key issue is whether USAID’s model is optimal for impact. Direct cash transfers, for example, have an 80 to 90 percent efficiency rate, yet USAID’s reliance on multi-layered contracting results in far lower direct impact. The argument is not that inefficiency is unique to USAID but that better models exist that minimize administrative losses. The sources provided already address this.
As for contextual balance, the focus of this piece is on whether USAID’s structure is the best way to achieve its goals, not whether it does some good. A system that consumes 80 percent of its funds before delivering aid is fundamentally flawed, regardless of the successes within that framework. A broader discussion on USAID’s contributions would be valuable in a different piece, but this analysis specifically evaluates financial inefficiencies and alternative models.
If there’s data showing that USAID outperforms in direct aid efficiency compared to alternatives, I’m open to reviewing it. But the question remains. If the majority of aid is absorbed before reaching its intended recipients, at what point do we rethink the model?
