Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-04-Speech-4-264"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030904.13.4-264"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I have voted in favour of this report because I believe that, in order to increase the effectiveness, transparency and coherence of aid grants, we must endeavour to give all developing countries the option of allocating the aid they receive as they see fit, providing they fulfil the criteria of transparency, adequacy and proportionality. Given the lack of definitive conclusions on the effects of such a process, what is needed first of all is a vote of confidence in the ability of the beneficiary states to act responsibly.
Such a move could enable these countries, if they see fit, to promote competition between suppliers of goods or services, thereby potentially reducing additional costs and the risks of corruption inherent in tied aid.
Despite adopting this principled stance, I would recommend caution, a gradual approach and the phasing in of the measure, because to do otherwise could lead to some States refusing to grant aid to developing countries, despite having the desire to do so, on the grounds that they cannot simply donate funds without receiving any form of compensation in return.
I suppose that, given the ambiguous nature of some political powers and public administrations, the corruption that we are attempting to prevent through the proposed untying could be perpetrated in other ways. I would, therefore, recommend that that the Union monitors and keeps a close eye on the way in which this measure is implemented, in order effectively to assess the good that it does and to deter any potential distortion of it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples