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.

Hyden and Court in their 2002 Discussion Paper, Governance and Development, relate the  BIS Review 109/2007  1  emergence of this dimension of governance to the changing paradigms in thinking on development. They trace the evolution of development thinking from the emphasis on projects to programmes, then to policies, and the latest recognition that in addition to these, politics is also important. The inclusion of the political dimension in development practice has altered the development landscape, prompting intrusion into aspects of policy earlier deemed beyond the limits of donor activity; with concomitant protests of violation of sovereignty and related controversies. The concept of governance arising from this process is not precise in meaning. Despite attempts at distinguishing between the political, economic and administrative aspects of governance, its analytic and operational dimensions, and its constitutive and distributive elements, in the final analysis governance is essentially all-embracing in its essence. It percolates through the entire fabric of the political, economic and social life of a nation. Recognition of this is reflected in the diversity of definitions given to the concept. While it may be too time-consuming to provide a sampling of these definitions, the flavour of the concept can be savoured from the following statement of Vivien Collingwood of Nuffield College, Oxford in the paper, Good Governance and the World Bank.