From article:
But making the changes will be tricky. The promotion of British interests in the 1980s led to projects that made little sense in economic or development terms, says Owen Barder of the Centre for Global Development, a think tank. There is a danger that, to make clear that aid benefits British interests, it could end up duplicating global programmes. Although short-term political interests can coincide with the needs of poor countries—funding for research into climate change and public health, for instance, can be funnelled to British universities and firms—greater transparency and oversight are needed to stop spending on projects simply because they are politically expedient. The government has confirmed that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), an official watchdog, will have responsibility for scrutinising all departments, not just DFID.
Working in fragile countries provokes other worries. Corruption is more entrenched. Changing conditions often undermine projects, as near-empty refugee camps in Jordan show. DFID will have to be more willing to experiment, says Alison Evans of ICAI. “The government has been a bit silent on the costs of pushing more resources into fragile environments. Doing so will require a risk appetite not seen before,” she adds.
Increasing aid spending via other government departments will also be challenging. There is a danger that mixed motives could undermine aid, says Richard Manning of Oxford University. DFID has greater expertise in project management and evaluation than other departments. And it is more transparent: Publish What You Fund, a charity that campaigns for aid transparency, rates DFID as very good, the Foreign Office as poor and the Ministry of Defence as very poor.