Thus, complaints are heard that some measures ignore the sociocultural context in which the institutional changes are to be effected, thereby constituting an illegitimate transplantation of institutions into developing countries. Issue is made of the use  6  BIS Review 109/2007  of governance indicators as conditionality for assistance, and the onset of selectivity, rather than an attempt at providing more meaningful support for relevant institutional development. Countries that accept the governance framework programme proposed by the donor community receive funding and support, while those more sceptical are more or less left out in the cold. Thus arises the questionable extent of linkage between governance, development and poverty alleviation. The fact that most African countries are so aid dependent compels acceptance of the governance conditionalities. Thus they are forced into a situation, which divests them of control of their economies, adopting policies that may not conduce to their long-term development, and making them easy prey for the interests of global capitalisation. Yet the need for governance reforms in most African countries cannot be denied. Inadequacies in the institutional set-up undoubtedly need attention and correction to bring about efficiency and competence in the management of the state, and hence the ability to provide citizens with the services they require for their well being. The plight of the developing countries compels resort to external assistance. Some economists, prominent among them Jeffrey Sachs, have proposed the need for a “big push” to help alleviate their problems.

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.