Message-ID: <199807100602.HAA15679@linux.lisse.na> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 07:02:40 +0100 From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <mailto:el@LINUX.LISSE.NA> Subject: Re: BAD EXPERIENCES etc.. To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
In message <mailto:MAPI.Id.0016.00776562202020203030303430303034@MAPI.to.RFC822>, uwe writes:> finally this discussion is coolong down and becoming more
> reasonable. Great! How nice would it be, if somebody could begin to
> provide the answers to the below questions. Who is the first?
Why are you saying this? It's the donors being unreasonable, not the recipients.
> > OK, 'donors' sending a handful of, ehm.. advisors packaged with their
> > money so that it is better spent ('better' may be in the donors' own
> > eyes) DOESN'T work. So, what DOES? Can anyone suggest from experience?
They idea behind donor funding is not to pump money into the developing country, it is to pump government money into the donor country (spend it better). And in the case of USAID it is to open markets for US companies.
A modest salary with half of the amound paid as additional per diem, for an absolutely uselsss advisor will count as 300000$US development aid paid to the developing country. They buy him a car (and even Ph.D. students from Germany here at research institutes get a Mercedes 4x4) means another 100000 DM in development aid paid to the developing country.
They send condemned equipment that is to expensive to destroy (environmental laws are so strict nowadays), it counts as X Million development aid give to the developing country.
Come on Uwe, have you *ANY* incling?
And, In the case of corrupt world bank advisors they usually get promoted. Not to speak of "Pulling a UNESCO".
el