book1

the IMF or the World Bank as these mul� lateral ins� tu� ons cannot withhold
its assistance to countries in need on the basis of their poor ins� tu� ons.
Mul� lateral organiza� ons, therefore, must look for other ways to improve
the eff ec� veness of their lending.
There is rarely a year when some oppressed countries, especially in Asia,
Africa and La� n America are not faced with a food crisis due to a natural
disaster or war. So it is paramount to highlight foreign aid as a temporary
measure. Eff orts should be to strengthen local indigenous civil society, and
empower people by helping them learn how to help themselves. If foreign
aid is hur� ng rather than helping them, then it is clearly in need of being
restructured, so that policy and incen� ves can be be� er coordinated to
achieve the desired outcomes. In the mean� me, research eff orts must
con� nue to search for the ways to improve its outcome.
Simone Galimber� spotlights “A bo� om up aid eff ec� veness approach:
the case for grass roots level accountability.” The cause-eff ect nexus
between aid and economic growth, as the real engine to take millions of
people away from poverty is being ques� oned. In short, aid is being pushed
outside its “comfort zone.” We witness, on one hand, the rise of new form of
aid, more focused on social innova� on and, we see a� empts to reform the
way of tradi� onal aid. Within the above men� oned trend, there is the case
for a more and be� er accountability by civil society organiza� ons engaged
at grassroots level. The Bellagio Ini� a� ve, Aidinfo, Open Government
Partnership, One World Trust etc are the several a� empts of moving forward
the agenda of the “real aid”. Although the Busan mee� ng is a forum on aid
eff ec� veness the ul� mate aim is eff ec� ve development. Unfortunately, there
is probably something missing in the global debate on aid eff ec� veness:
eff ec� ve aid will be achieved when the accountability agenda will be fully
endorsed through a new bo� om up ci� zen centered process that keeps the
common people in the driver seat of the developing agenda.
Weak coordina� on and weaker monitoring and evalua� on framework
are the reali� es in most of developing countries. Therefore the � me is ripe
for a strong ac� on, something ambi� ous, a Global Compact on Grassroots
Aid Eff ec� veness, for grassroots quality aid. In order to make this compact
a reality, we need to review the roles and responsibili� es of civil society
organiza� ons, interna� onal, locals, CBOs and NGOs. The frameworks at
countries level should refl ect the domains of the Paris Declara� on, nominally
ownership, alignment, harmoniza� on, results, and mutual accountability.
Community ownership as means of empowering local benefi ciaries;
alignment and harmoniza� on as a compact that prescribes minimum
prac� ces and procedures to ensure how a new interven� on will really fi t in
the local priori� es set by the district authori� es; and accountability defi ned
as common responsibili� es to deliver the best service at the best value
for money, with highest level of par� cipa� on of the local benefi ciaries, if
prac� cally addressed, will off er a real opportunity to “democra� ze” the way
aid is delivered.
Accep� ng the CSOs as development partners represents a new building
XVII