IT was the Scottish Executive, under Labour leadership, that set up Scotland’s international development fund. It has continued, with if anything greater prominence under the SNP.

Ministers regularly cite Scotland’s role as a small country playing its part on the global stage, and say international aid demonstrate our collective compassion and desire to make a difference.

But there has been very little work done to establish whether a budget of £10 million a year – recently raised from £9 million – is achieving what it is intended to do.

Claims are made for the success of programmes, in countries such as Zambia, Rwanda and Tanzania, in terms of the numbers of teachers and teachers trained, solar powered reading lamps delivered, farmers supported and community renewable energy projects started.

But, according to one of the few in-depth analyses of the 10 year old international developme nt programme, these claims are not always well founded. Projects are delivered in Scotland’s name, and statistics can be brandished about what has been achieved. But has it improved the lives of people in developing nations, and is it sustainable? In some cases any gains achieved by the spending overseen by Scotland’s International Development Secretary – currently Alasdair Allan MSP – appear completely reliant on continued funding, leaving the recipient country in a state of dependency.

That case was urgently made by a report submitted to the Scottish Government two years ago. Its frustration spills over into some colourful language - suggesting ‘vanity projects’ are pursued by ministers eager for an easy PR win, and that a ‘wha’s like us’ bluster tends to take precedence over cold-eyed scrutiny of what is being achieved.

It is also worth noting the authors at the Springfield Centre thinktank are ideologically committed to market-based solutions to aid. But that doesn’t make their findings any easier to dismiss.

The Scottish Governnment insists there are “clear and stringent” measures in place to monitor the impact of the projects it supports and that they make a “life-changing difference”.

That may be the case, but it is difficult to find such measures of the real outcomes of such work, or evidence that the international development fund makes an ongoing, sustainable impact for the people or the countries it helps.

Indeed, as the report points out, the one project which has been subjected to a degree of rigorous analysis – the Malawi Renewable Energy Acceleration Programme – has conceded itself that two-thirds of the projects it has funded would likely collapse within three years without more funding to prop them up.

The report also warns of a lack of oversight from outside agencies: Organisations which might help provide perspective on the programme have grown so dependent upon government funding that they cannot hold ministers to account, it claims.

None of this means ministers are wrong to pursue a role for Scotland on the international development stage. The Scottish Government is not obliged to fund international development at all. But just because you don’t have to do something doesn’t mean you should not do it.

The Scottish public are broadly supportive of international aid, as evidenced by the tens of thousands of people who have taken the Malawi connection to their hearts, and engaged with appeals, exchanges, fundraising and more.

But there is a real lack of transparency about the practical benefits of this funding. There is a broad political consensus that a role for Scotland in international development is desirable. That makes it all the more important that a robust system is in place to monitor it.