I largely agree that the rising role of multinationals has, to some extent, reduced the relative importance of traditional foreign aid in the post-WTO regime, though aid still matters in specific contexts.

The WTO’s emphasis on trade liberalization and reduced barriers to investment has created an environment favorable for multinational corporations (MNCs). These firms bring foreign direct investment (FDI) along with technology, managerial know-how, access to global markets, and jobs. For many developing countries, FDI has become a more substantial and effective source of external finance than official development assistance (ODA). Unlike aid, FDI is often regarded as “smart money” because it is profit-driven, efficient, and generally sustainable. It also avoids creating debt burdens that sometimes accompany concessional loans or tied aid.

Foreign aid, however, still plays a vital role in areas unattractive to private investors, such as humanitarian relief, poverty reduction, basic health systems, and primary education. Yet, its share in global capital flows has diminished, and aid flows can be unpredictable, donor-driven, and bureaucratically inefficient. By contrast, countries today actively compete to attract FDI by strengthening infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and business environments.

Still, aid and FDI are not substitutes. In fragile states, post-conflict regions, or least-developed countries with weak institutions, aid remains indispensable. But for emerging economies integrated into the global system, the scale and developmental impact of MNC-led investment have overshadowed traditional aid, shifting the balance toward trade and investment as the dominant engines of growth.