The word “aid” has a natural meaning that is based on “assisting” a person or persons to overcome their own stated problem(s) or threat(s). It never meant helping a person overcome perceived problems. A second implied mean to the word “aid” is support for an act or acts of a person or persons to overcome their own stated problem(s) or threat(s).

The current global understanding of “aid” has, over the years, systematically distanced itself from this natural meaning. In recent times, “aid” has become almost exclusively tied to economic development and enhancement of perceived ideas of the social environment. In that tie up, “aid” has almost completely ignored community and natural development as well as cultural and natural environments. Additionally, it has translated “aid” into specific components such as financial assistance, material assistance, psychological assistance etc. Very little aid goes into “supportive assistance” for individuals or communities with self formulated plans for overcoming their own problems or threats.

Additionally, strangely and dangerously, “aid” has become a channel for making a profit, mostly through conditionalities that allow for exploitation of valuable natural resources.

It is common knowledge that aid based on this format has causes more problems that it has solved. It is granted that the “aid world” has slowly woken up to this fact or at the very least, found its mechanisms untenable for continuation of exploitative practices. This, in turn has given rise to supposedly affirmative action such as the “Paris Declaration” of 2005. There is was heralded that a more effective “aid regime” would be set in place through the five key principles of ownership , alignment, harmonization, managing for results and mutual accountability.  

It is equally common knowledge that southern civil society organizations (SCSOs).view these principles and attendant modalities with some skepticism. The chief articulated concerns are that the declaration does not go far enough in key areas such as technical assistance and untying aid, fails to acknowledge or address the impact of policy conditionalities, glosses over central poverty eradication concerns and is more interested in processes rather than outcomes and does not require transparency in the aid system leaving donors and southern governments unaccountable to parliaments and citizens.