The ability of foreign aid to reach its goals is called into question as it has routinely failed to meet the needs of the poor. The current conditions of the people in the Third World are desperate. Roughly one quarter of the world’s population lives on less than $1 a day, a proportion that seems to be on the rise (Moyo 2009, 5). The need for aid effectiveness combined with inconsistent success has generated impatience and concern, giving rise to recurring trends and obsessions within the development landscape. Consequently, such concerns over the lack of aid effectiveness ironically have created an overall environment in which aid is made even less effective. The scramble to find a solution in hopes of rendering aid effective has produced numerous recurring aid trends. In spite of their failure, these ‘aid fads’ resurfaced generations later, simply to be reintroduced with a new and fancy name. The pressing need for sustainable results and poverty reduction has called for a rethinking of aid; one characterized by its effectiveness and therefore deemed ‘smart aid’. This essay tackles the issue of foreign aid in Africa, but it is not about money. Money, though critically important, it is not enough to reverse the effects of poverty and should therefore not be the focus. The non-financial aspects play a pivotal role in ensuring that funds are adequately allocated. That being said, the quality of donor-recipient relationships fundamentally set the stage for effective policy direction and its associated success in producing favorable outcomes (Pomerantz 2004, 8). Foreign aid can indeed become ‘smart aid’ if donors and recipients mutually implement strategies of accountability and transparency in order to ensure the proper dispensation of funds aimed at human development needs. In an effort to curb corruption and ensure effective aid, adequate measuring of results must be integrated into the policy environment. This essay will begin by discussing the intended goals of aid along with how it has been wasted and thus contributed to its ineffectiveness. Arguments for mutual accountability and transparency will follow, providing insight to the various benefits these strategies will have for the future of aid. In an effort to create an environment where aid goals are achieved, the capacity to measure results is inevitably required and will be expanded on to demonstrate how aid goals can be successfully achieved. Finally, as the foreign aid industry has come under close scrutiny and is a hotly debated topic, the last section will devote attention to counter-arguments for accountability and transparency measures, as not all agree with this view. Goals of Aid and How Aid is Wasted: Official Development Assistance alludes to “the flows of official financing administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as the main objective, and which are concessional in character with a grant element of at least 25%” (Brown 2009, 135). In other words, ODA aims to promote economic development and welfare in less developed countries as its main objective (Brown 2009, 135). Motivated by a desire to help those in poverty-stricken areas, Official Development Assistance aims to provide access to basic needs and opportunities where they may lack (Brown 2009, 135). Despite its good intentions, the ability of foreign aid to meet development goals has sparked an ongoing debate on aid effectiveness. Over recent decades, the pattern of foreign aid, taking the form of concessional loans and grants, has failed to make substantial inroads into poverty reduction (Brown 2009, 135). The significant flows of capital invested in aid programs have yet to achieve concrete development goals, what William Easterly deems as the ‘tragedy of aid’ (Howes 2009, 488). The absence of a formula to eradicate poverty indicates that much of the money spent on aid undeniably gets wasted both within recipient countries and abroad. The list of corrupt practices in Africa is almost endless, yet its existence is not solely the problem attributed to the failure of aid. Rather, as Dambisa Moyo states, the point is that “aid is one of corruption’s greatest aides” (Moyo 2009, 49). With the help of foreign aid, countries characterized by dysfunctional governments quickly become trapped in a vicious cycle of aid dependency, wherein long-term goals of sustainable development are hampered (Moyo 2009, 49). In contexts of high degrees of corruption, proper government dispensation of revenues suffers, as nefarious leaders are likely to engage in rent-seeking behavior. That is, rather than allocating funds to public welfare, corrupt elites take advantage of extortion opportunities (Moyo 2009, 51). A perfect example of this was Uganda in the 1990s. At that time, it was estimated that merely 20 cents of each US dollar of government spending on education reached the targeted local primary school (Moyo 2