Significant criticisms have been leveled at both the donors and the recipients of foreign aid. Some groups in recipient countries have viewed foreign aid suspiciously as nothing more than a tool of influence of donor countries. For example, critics of the IMF allege that the required structural adjustments are too politically difficult and too rigorous and that the debts incurred through IMF loans help to create poverty, as capital that could have been invested instead was channeled into debt repayment. The World Bank, which critics claimed in the 1970s and ’80s was insensitive to local needs and often approved projects that did more harm than good, altered many of its policies and has generally endured less criticism. In general, opponents of the way that foreign aid programs have operated charge that foreign aid has been dominated by corporate interests, has created an unreasonable debt burden on developing countries, and has forced countries to avoid using strategies that might protect their economies from the open market. In addition, many critics of U.S. aid illustrate the continued importance of political considerations over developmental ones, citing for example the increase in aid to countries allied with the United States in the fight against terrorism following the September 11 attacks in 2001, regardless of their commitment to democracy and human rights.