Every year the developed world sends billions of dollars in aid and foreign direct investment into Africa and the rest of the Global South.

The amounts, geographic directions and purposes of these dollars are debated in parliaments, foreign affairs offices, think tanks and board rooms.

America alone is responsible for more than $30 billion in aid annually, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

While impressive in absolute terms, this amounts to a paltry 0.19 percent of Gross National Income — well below the U.N. 0.7-percent baseline for developed country development aid. Other countries, while contributing considerably less in absolute terms, punch above their weight. This includes Luxembourg (1 percent), Sweden (0.99 percent), Norway (0.93 percent), Denmark (0.84 percent) and the Netherlands (0.71 percent).

The recipients of this aid are spread throughout the Global South, but have a particular concentration in Africa. According to the World Bank, in 2011 (the most recent year for which data is available) four of the top 10 aid recipients are on the continent while no African country is a net giver of aid.

In addition to debating the amounts and geographic directions of foreign aid and investment, there is ongoing controversy as to what programs should be funded and what should be left alone.

It is with this in mind that Benjamin Leo with the Center for Global Development recently published a working paper entitled, “Is Anyone Listening? Does U.S. Foreign Assistance Target People’s Top Priorities?”

In this paper Leo — director of the organization’s Rethinking U.S. Development Policy Program — used public-attitude surveys from 42 African and Latin American countries that were the recipients of U.S. aid to find out what the public wanted out of such aid programs.

The results, while unsurprising, did not align with the general targets of U.S. aid and suggest that there could be a significantly greater role for business in providing assistance to developing states.

In sub-Saharan Africa the top four most frequently cited problems that residents wish would be addressed with aid were jobs/income, infrastructure, economic and financial policies and poverty/inequality.

While employment and income have constantly been the most prevalent concerns over the last decade, they have steadily decreased: 40 percent of individuals surveyed said jobs/income were significant concerns in 2002-2004. Approximately 28 percent said so in the most recent round of surveys.

The greatest increase in concern is over infrastructure, which more-than doubled over the last decade, going from less than 10 percent in 2002-2004 to 20 percent in the latest round of surveys.

Studies have shown that aid effectiveness is tied to the preferences and decision making of the poor. Even those with virtually no discretionary income make choices that have huge impact on the potential success of development initiatives.

This is where business can play an important role in future development initiatives. The preferences of the residents of the 42 countries, and in particular, in sub-Saharan Africa, skewed strongly towards business competencies and business necessities. As Leo said in his working paper, much of development decision making is based on comparative advantage.

“The establishment of core competencies and a successful track record of results are often established over years or even decades,” Leo said. “By illustration, the African Development Bank has a strong comparative advantage in infrastructure while the U.S. has an advantage in the health sector. In fact, donors may completely lack technical capacity in certain programmatic areas – which would have to be built from scratch.”

While the competence of businesses in providing jobs and income is obvious, the advantages to multinationals improving infrastructure have previously been addressed here. In effect, spending money on infrastructure both improves firms’ reputations and allows for greater access to the continent’s sprawling in-lands.

The particular comparative advantage that is held by the private-sector in providing for the most pressing concerns of African citizens should lead the U.S. and other developed countries to work towards a more private sector-based approach to development aid.

This would include a recalibration of finite aid budgets towards initiatives encouraging foreign direct investment. Leo cites the Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC) — a body that insures and encourages overseas investments and has by far its biggest portfolio in sub-Saharan Africa — as one area where the U.S. could vastly improve in this capacity.

The center’s policy recommendations for the federal government under OPIC include “…hiring more staff, providing OPIC with equity and technical assistance authorities, and consolidating related programs spread across multiple government agencies under OPIC’s management…”

There is much that can be done to improve the lives of ordinary African citizens by both governments and companies.

The start of this is to listen to the citizens themselves. When this has been done their responses overwhelmingly skewed towards business competencies including jobs and the building of infrastructure.

This should cause the U.S. and other governments to realign aid policies to be more in line with what ordinary citizens want and should cause firms to see the advantages of foreign direct investment.

Businesses should further take advantage of these policies, working with the OPIC and other organization to ensure future success in African development.