This is seen as exploitation by the donor community of developing countries' need for investment, aid and debt relief, to create conditions that will facilitate their infiltration by globalised financial interests. The following statement in the July 2004 issue of South Bulletin is typical of this perspective: “Whence this striking paradox, inherent in good governance, of calls going out from the international organisations to national governments that these latter adopt, indeed “appropriate”, neo-liberal economic policies imposed from without while the globalised financial markets dispossess them of their sovereignty and insinuate themselves into the countries' ownership structure of capital”. 4  BIS Review 109/2007  The controversy continues on the link between governance and development, and while its proponents claim strong empirical evidence for it, there is strong assertion of the contrary, or at least agnostic, view in other quarters. It would seem that the jury is still out on this debate. Aspects of governance in Sierra Leone The principal donor institutions in Sierra Leone, as in most developing countries, are the World Bank, and the IMF. Donor support programmes coordinated by the World Bank are provided within the framework of the Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Following implementation of an Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, the Bank approved a full Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper for Sierra Leone in February 2005, covering the period 2006 – 2009. The major instrumentality for Fund assistance to Sierra Leone is the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF).

The case for transparency and good budgetary management assumes further significance in the evolving advocacy for channelling aid through the domestic budget. The provision of aid in the form of general budgetary support confers greater independence in the use of resources on recipient countries, stronger national ownership of development policies and programmes, and lower costs than those associated with multiple aid delivery modalities. For this intention to be achieved on a wide basis and the proffered benefits realised, donor governments and institutions must have confidence in mechanisms in place in recipient countries for the management of the budget. Worries about corruption and mismanagement are antithetical to this objective; hence the need for strengthened budgetary procedures, improved governance and transparency. There is a strong perception in the donor community that international assistance is required to help strengthen the public financial management systems and processes in aid receiving countries, including oversight by parliament, audit boards and civil society. Apart from the technical dimensions of the intervention, it is considered pertinent that, as may be relevant, the recipient countries should subscribe and adhere to, internationally sanctioned arrangements, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), to ensure appropriate disclosure of revenue accruals and maximisation of inflows from national resources. Accountability is the natural concomitant of transparency. Indeed, the purpose of transparency is essentially the facilitation of accountability. In general, accountability refers to the obligation of those in authority to account to those on whose behalf they exercise such authority, for the discharge of the responsibilities entrusted to them.