But not everyone was of the same view. People sometimes think that my talk about focus on using money the right way means that I am against fund flows for assistance. Far from it ... I just want to see fund flows doing some good rather than merely being used to support an industry that now has high overhead and not much to show for it.
Molly Tumusiime, on Dec 4, 2007 sent the following message:
"I agree with the foregone concerns about accountability and transparency, they are a good theoretical analogues that sometimes mask us from looking at real issues. Please don't take me wrong I love it if all factors are constant. Africa in particular has had a share of blame and counter blame over corruption and embezzlement of funds because the world does not see the continent look like the first world, but I always wonder if people try to weigh the magnitude of Africa's needs against the aid that is put in? Does the world ever sit to analyze and see how much ,even of that trillion my colleague is talking about below goes back to its owners in terms of technical assistance, posh cars, expensive hotels they sleep in while in Africa, boosting economies at hope by supporting the buying of things made in their countries, to the extent that when the technocrats go back home the cost of maintaining such things is a burden and subsequent waste. May I suggest that Peter Burgess takes time off to scan through the moralistic side of Africa's aid before he fights how Africa should not get aid. Let him conduct his research about the two questions he has raised (Meanwhile, there is little or no questioning of why it is that the previous $3 trillion (an imprecise number) has done so little, and how it is that these funds were ineffective.)I shall be interested to read his findings.