[rayiner]

I use "ignorant" quite deliberately; the opinion of U.S. foreign aid as having strings attached to benefit the U.S. is literally ignorant of what U.S. foreign aid projects and funding look like.

I haven't read the book, but de Mesquita is addressing something different, the fact that foreign aid can enable bad leaders to stay in power by giving them a flow of benefits they can use to reward cronies and placate the populace: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/opinion/10DeMesquita.html. That may well be true, but it's a criticism of foreign aid in general; note that de Mesquita is associate with the Hoover Institution, which believes that government-to-government foreign aid is inherently misguided: https://www.hoover.org/research/better-approach-foreign-aid.

De Mesquita does not contend that U.S. foreign aid is a form of "empire building" intended to make recipient countries dependent on the U.S. or confer direct economic benefits to the U.S. (Even if the U.S. is driven by the possibility of indirect benefit from having more capitalistic countries on the world stage, along with a stable world order, that is something quite different from seeking an "empire").

[marklgr]

IIRC, he claims that foreign aids directly help autocratic rulers stay in place, by giving them means to pay off their vital support. So he says that it clearly prevents uplifting people or teaching them democracy, since they are the first victims of dictatorship.

[rayiner]

I'd go even further than that and say that foreign aid helps keep badly-run democratic governments stay in place (e.g. in Bangladesh). Being skeptical about whether foreign aid achieves the desired effect is very different than saying that the U.S. provides foreign aid for purposes of "empire building."