Or the provision of aid may have unintended adverse consequences.
For example Rwanda has received considerable foreign aid and although by some criteria it has benefited from this aid, much of the population has not profited. In fact it has helped perpetuate and even exacerbate sectarian inequalities which could easily bring a return to the civil war and genocide of 1994.
While there is no longer a genocide or overt civil war in Rwanda it can by no means be described as a peaceful country. Hostility and distrust continue to prevail between the ruling minority urban Tutsis and the majority impoverished rural Hutu. And overt civil war could break out at any time long after the 1994 genocide. Thus although Rwanda has received a massive infusion of foreign aid this has disproportionately benefited the elite Tutsis. On the positive side Rwanda is the only country in sub-Saharan Africa on track to meet all health related UN goals including reducing under5 mortality by two thirds. Also since 1994 per capita income has almost tripled and GDP quadrupled.( Farmer 2013) However these positive statistics hide significant disparities in ethnic aid beneficiaries. More than half of the aid received is distributed through Tutsi dominated government institutions so that it benefits mostly already comparatively better off Tutsis rather than the impoverished Hutus ( Farmer 2013)) Thus even though statistics indicate overall per capita income and GDP have risen rural Hutus who make up 84% of the population remain impoverished, (Endless and Hakizimana 2009). This high sectarian income disparity is fostered by policies of the Tutsi dominated government such as under funding of agriculture primarily a Hutu activity, provision of assistance only to Tutsi genocide survivors and although Rwanda historically has been primarily a French speaking