The U.S. allocated a total of $53 billion to foreign military and economic aid in 2010, making the U.S. the largest investor in foreign aid in the world, according to USAID . However, some claim these funds are largely ineffective.

Foreign aid for economic advancement and infrastructure development can come in the form of military aid, such as weapons, or non-military aid, such as food. On the surface, giving money to developing nations may seem virtuous, but foreign aid has its problems.

Nora Haenn , director of the University’s international studies program, is very skeptical of the value of foreign aid.

“It’s a business,” Haenn said. “A lot of people think aid is about creating friends in other countries-and it is-but it’s really a business.”

Haenn’s research monitors international aid, and she has observed that aid money oftentimes never reaches the people it was meant to help. Money travels through corrupt channels in foreign government, and in some cases, is used for political gain instead of going to help the people of developing nations.

“It’s easy to think that if you send $25 a month to a starving child in a poor country, you’re making their life better, but it’s really much more complicated than a lot of people know,” Haenn said.

But these issues aren’t endemic to the countries they afflict-the problems surrounding international aid can go much deeper. According to Haenn , international aid can even impede a country’s ability to be independent.

Having a steady flow of foreign aid can make a country dependent on that aid, and their dependence may force countries to alter their government or culture to accommodate the wishes of their benefactor. Haenn’s research with foreign aid also brings up how a dependency on aid can cause artificial power structures between countries.

“It’s often the case that powerful entities end up needing others to be weak to justify the aid,” Haenn said.

For example, anthropologist Akhil Gupta’s research revealed that even after India became independent from Britain, aspects of their former colonial relations endured. Gupta noted in his research that in the years following India’s newfound independence, the British government used foreign aid to convince the Indian people they were better off being governed by a power that could bring them things like food and schools for children.

 ”We really have to hold governments accountable for their actions,” Haenn said.

Even if greed and corruption were resolved, foreign aid might still be more trouble than it’s worth.

According to Alex Martin, senior in international studies and business administration, foreign aid works well for short-term relief, such as aid following famines, natural disasters, or political uprisings. Martin notes that just giving money to other countries is not nearly enough to get a country to truly develop, which is the ultimate goal of foreign aid.

To help countries develop without hurting, Martin, a Caldwell Fellow and Fulbright Scholar, is in favor of moving from an ‘aid’ mentality to a ‘development’ mentality. Martin’s research has been looking into two ideas for potential growth: fair trade and microcredit loans.

Fair trade makes it easier for people in developing nations to gain access to the international market by providing places to sell their wares. Microcredit , on the other hand, involves giving money directly to an individual or group to help their business.

Both of these methods rely on giving funds to people rather than government, in an effort to develop a nation by starting at its roots.

“The idea isn’t to make enough money to get by,” Martin said. “The idea is to make enough money that you still have enough to pay for your home, or to send your kids to school. If you give people the tools they lack so that they can do things for themselves, you’ll see long-term growth and development.”

While there isn’t a clear-cut answer to the foreign aid debate, Martin’s and Haenn’s research shows that common foreign aid practices need to change so international aid doesn’t perpetuate the problem of irresponsible funding and lack of development.