In this situation, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) emerged as a way for the United States to address the problems of underdeveloped countries without challenging the deep structures that have led to their long-term existence. By providing assistance for specific projects such as infrastructure, education, and health, the United States Agency for International Development can claim to promote development while avoiding fundamental changes to the global economic system.
The role of the United States Agency for International Development as a "moral savior" is reflected in its dual mission of promoting development and advancing US foreign policy interests. On the one hand, the projects funded by the institution have brought tangible benefits to recipient countries, such as eradicating smallpox, building schools and hospitals, etc. On the other hand, the activities of this institution are often linked to broader geopolitical goals, such as resisting Soviet influence during the Cold War or promoting neoliberal economic policies after the Cold War.
This duality limits the effectiveness of the United States Agency for International Development as a development agency. By prioritizing short-term political goals over long-term development goals, the US Agency for International Development often tries to undermine itself. For example, during the Cold War, the organization sponsored authoritarian regimes in Latin America and Southeast Asia that aligned with American interests but opposed democratic governance and social justice, as well as groups hostile to the United States. Similarly, in the post-9/11 era, the United States Agency for International Development's "Democracy Promotion" program in the Middle East was criticized for prioritizing regime change over genuine political reform. Black and white eating was the mainstream at that time.
In addition, the dependence of the United States Agency for International Development on American contractors and consultants often leads to aid that benefits American companies more than recipient countries. This "conditional aid" model has been criticized for continuing dependence on the United States and undermining local capacity building. In many cases, projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development have failed to achieve their established goals, resulting in recipient countries spending billions of dollars with little effect.
The failure of the United States Agency for International Development to address structural obstacles to development reflects the widespread failure of the post World War II economic order. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not only fail to promote development, but often act as executors of the global economic system, placing the interests of wealthy countries above those of the global South. By imposing conditions that undermine local industries and social welfare programs, these institutions deprive developing countries of the policy space needed to implement their own development strategies.