I will try to find some time to enter this discussion personally, but until then, here is what DATA says about development assistance to Africa and how the programs that DATA has helped to develope with the Bush administration and which has been passed by Congress (but which remain WOEFULLY UNDERFUNDED) like PEPFAR and the MCA directly funnel monies into programs and governments in Africa who will use the money in prudent ways to help their people.
So a lot of the discussion is is made a bit mute because The ONE Campaign and other organizations (like Oxfam) who are doing the bulk of the advocacy work for Africa are ALREADY ADRESSING YOUR CONCERNS.
Here is the page from the DATA site:
The Development Assistance Crisis
Millions of people in Africa, and elsewhere around the world, depend on financial support from wealthy governments, the United Nations, and private organizations to provide basic necessities they cannot afford such as clean water, health care, textbooks and food. In the best cases, this assistance helps communities become more independent — so that in the long run, they won't need to rely on handouts. Too often, though, development assistance has been wasted, ineffective or given for the wrong reasons. As a result, “aid” has become a dirty word to some people. But effective aid, or development assistance, is one of the best investments we can make — in the lives of others and in our own future. We can do it better and we must do more of it.
Back in 1970, wealthy nations agreed that 0.7% of the money their countries made in a year (or Gross National Product — GNP) would be a fair amount to share with poor countries. That doesn’t sound like very much, but the richest nations aren’t even halfway to that target. Overall, they gave just 0.25% of national wealth for development assistance in 2003. Only five countries have reached the 0.7% target — Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The U.S., the world’s richest country, gives the smallest percentage of its wealth, 0.14%, to poor countries.
So what is development assistance trying to achieve? Is it just a bottomless pit? No. In 2000, world leaders committed to a set of concrete ‘Millennium Development Goals’ for all poorer countries — halving poverty, fighting AIDS, giving all children the chance to go to school and every person access to clean drinking water, among other things. But two-thirds of the poorest countries which are off-track and very unlikely to meet these goals are in Sub-Saharan Africa (that portion of Africa which is located south of the Sahara Desert).
The United Nations has estimated that Africa will need more than twice what it receives today in development assistance in order to reach these goals by 2015. But simply pouring more money is not the answer. In order to truly help Africa—and in order to make sure taxpayers’ money is not wasted—the quality of development assistance has to be improved as the quantity goes up. For example, much of the money given by rich countries to poor countries is actually ‘tied’ to the interests of rich government. This means that poor countries have to spend a portion of the money buying goods and services from the country that gave it, rather than giving them the option to shop around for the best value for money. This reduces the quality of much foreign aid considerably. One World Bank survey estimated that ‘tied’ aid was 20% less effective than untied aid. Studies also show that aid is also more effective if it is “country-owned”. This means that the recipient countries should be deciding how to spend the money for themselves after consulting with their citizens, especially the poorest groups.
WHAT MUST HAPPEN
The quantity of aid needs to be increased so that no country with clear and accountable plans lacks the necessary resources to provide basic health care or education. In particular, special emphasis must be placed on increasing resources for the fight against HIV/AIDS.
Funding the Millennium Development Goals means that we have to increase the current global amount for development assistance to an extra $75 billion a year. Governments need to make rapid progress towards 0.7 percent to reach this sum.
The quality of aid needs to be improved by ending the practice of “tied” aid that can only be spent on goods and services that come from wealthy nations. The quality can also be improved through better coordination amongst donor countries and by including groups which represent the poorest people in deciding how increased aid is spent.
Pledges that have been made to increase both the quantity and quality of assistance, like the U.S. Millennium Challenge Account, must be supported and fully funded.