<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Aid to Ethiopia (Le Monde)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.owen.org/blog/47/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/47</link>
	<description>Thoughts from Owen in Africa</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:49:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Owen</title>
		<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/47/comment-page-1#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>Owen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owen.org/blog/47#comment-91</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m tempted to think that if we don&#039;t think that minimum standards and results will be delivered unless we play a checks and balances role, then we probably should not be giving it budget support at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m tempted to think that if we don&#8217;t think that minimum standards and results will be delivered unless we play a checks and balances role, then we probably should not be giving it budget support at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AJ</title>
		<link>http://www.owen.org/blog/47/comment-page-1#comment-89</link>
		<dc:creator>AJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.owen.org/blog/47#comment-89</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think there&#039;s any way for Donors to avoid playing a &#039;checks and balances&#039; role anywhere where they&#039;re providing direct budget support and where the government has an oversight monopoly. The reason is that if there&#039;s no domestic opposition then the chance of decent oversight is small, so we shouldn&#039;t be giving budget support if we&#039;re not prepared to put pressure on the government to achieve minimum standards and results.

I agree that playing a role that domestic actors should be playing is dangerous; but if we agree we shouldn&#039;t do it, then direct support should be off the agenda.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s any way for Donors to avoid playing a &#8216;checks and balances&#8217; role anywhere where they&#8217;re providing direct budget support and where the government has an oversight monopoly. The reason is that if there&#8217;s no domestic opposition then the chance of decent oversight is small, so we shouldn&#8217;t be giving budget support if we&#8217;re not prepared to put pressure on the government to achieve minimum standards and results.</p>
<p>I agree that playing a role that domestic actors should be playing is dangerous; but if we agree we shouldn&#8217;t do it, then direct support should be off the agenda.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
