Whilst you may not approve of the ‘intellectual jargon’ (sorry, my bad) it does not negate the findings, namely that more aid equals less growth, which in turn affects the poor of such a nation most negatively.
This is in no way ‘my theory’ at all, and is not ‘an opinion’ but the conclusions of independent objective studies conducted with no vested interest in any particular outcome, William Easterlys’ 40year study being but one.
This may be distressing to those who vest their belief in the effectiveness of aid, but this does not change the realities either.

Government to government aid transfers do not reach their intended beneficiaries (the poor) while the political elites fail to implement the economic adjustments intended to increase growth and improve the plight of the poor. As you say, they sell food for profit while the aid agencies try to feed the starving. That is if the paramilitary thugs don’t get hold of it and sell that too, or use it as a political weapon to prop up their criminal regime.
Should such aid continue?
There is much talk of transforming aid to render it ‘transparent’ and the recipients ‘accountable’. This would require the cooperation of the very criminally inhuman leaders of which you speak.

It is no coincidence that those economies which are least free are also the ones having the most oppressive and abusive regimes. “Nasty govts” are out there and this has “nothing to do with aid” so what, exactly is your point?

China is not a recipient of aid, rather a manipulative donor of such. Their human rights record may be appalling, but this does not negate the fact that in those regions where economic freedom has been tolerated, spectacular growth has been achieved. This does not ‘justify’ the human rights abuses, it indicates the direction in which to move if growth is to be achieved, and in the absence of growth, improvement of the plight of the poor is not possible.

Governments which opt for economic freedom do not have to do so by implementing human rights abuses, in fact the reverse is true.
Human rights and political freedom follows growth and economic freedom, oppression follows economic stagnation and collapse.

It may be a none too palatable reality, but the ‘inverse relationship’ between aid and growth unfortunately exists, and can be ‘empirically’ demonstrated.
It simply does not work if growth and development are its ostensible purpose.

‘Aid’ to developing nations continues because it serves manipulative political agendas and vested interests, but that is another matter entirely.

And when mentioning China, did you also mention the massive corruption involved in moving peasants off their land without compensation, for housing estates and business parks, (usually involving bribes to local politicians and local businessmen, when they weren’t one and the same), resulting in displaced internal, poor refugees, uually kept alive by relatives or internal aid charities. (In a similar situation to Cambodia)

Or were you too busy being academic to be realistic?

(According to your theory Darfur can be solved by not giving aid, which will solve it since they will all eventually die, or flee abroad, thereby solving the problem. Which is what the Khartoum govt wants, incidentally whilst they export food for profit, whilst the UN feeds their population.

Which has nothing to do with aid but more to do with the inhumanity of the Khartoum regime that African and Arabic leaders like to spend their time protecting from warrants for crimes against humanity.

So stop with the academic jargon and start with pointing out that nasty govts will let their populations suffer and let the UN pick up the pieces, in moral blackmail, whilst they sun themselves in villas, having fourteen wives and a collection of expensive limousines cf: The King of Swaziland.)

(Cato: Why Doesn’t Aid Work? http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/
04/03/william-easterly/why-doesnt-aid-work/).

African governments tend to adopt anti growth policies which are characterized by high levels of state intervention in the economies with low levels of economic freedom.

This contrasts sharply with the SEZ’s (Special Economic Zones in China, with virtually entire absence of economic regulation) where growth rates of up to 20% p.a. were being achieved while we were patting ourselves on the back for a paltry 4½ to 6% in a progressively more regulated economy over the same global boom period.

Not only does prescriptive aid impinge upon policy freedoms of the recipients, it seldom reaches its intended target, producing an ethic by the elite of fostering poverty in order to receive more aid.

Developing nations which are struggling with poverty need to abandon restrictive interventions, and emulate the domestic economic policies of those nations which are prospering rather than making excuses and seeking more aid.

Throwing money without accounts or audits at the countries in return for mining licences and large, visible buildings (railways, dams, harbours, parliaments) as publicity, without actually researching as to whetether it will help the local people.

Let alone when the building projects require the removal of the local population, open up areas to exploitation and reduce the locals to prostitutes and beer sellers at the local truckstop or mining camp.