More Aid isn’t necessarily better Aid.

I don’t buy a newspaper everyday although I do look at news online.  When I buy a newspaper or magazine (usually when I am travelling) I try a different one each time.  Some I never buy - but often find copies left by other travellers. 
This week I bought the Financial Times on Monday, the Economist on Tuesday, and found the Times on Tuesday and the Evening Standard today.  The FT and the Economist both had articles about Aid and the problems of too many aid agencies, too little cooperation between them and too little communication inside some of the largest.  Officials in recipient countries therefore have to spend too much time dealing with the agencies’ bureaucracies and too little time managing the aid.
This supports one of the most current criticisms I hear about charities in general;  too many of them doing what appears to be the same thing but separately;  too much duplication of effort, and to little cooperation.  Unnecessary under any circumstances, tragic in a crisis situation.
Charities aren’t democratic organizations and there is apparently little an ordinary person can do to encourage them to work together.  Except, of course, donors can withdraw their financial support, but many would be extremely reluctant to do this because it would be the recipients of aid that would suffer most.
From their website this problem is something that BOND, www.bond.org.uk the UK’s network of voluntary organizations working in international development, is taking very seriously.  Will they be brave enough to publish a league table that will show donors the development charities that work together most effectively making the most of every pound, dollar, and euro they receive?  This is an obvious practical response that people would understand.
If you wouldlike to read the articles I read go to:
A Scramble in Africa http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12060397
Quality of Mercy http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4ba105a-7d08-11dd-8d59-000077b07658.html