： Risto Karajkov, 欧洲声音布鲁塞尔，比利时， 2008年5月8日

什么跟随是一个真实的故事。

一所欧共体咨询学校在西巴尔干赢取一个合同。 它被规定一位专业工程师以至少15年’经验必须是其中一位关键资深专家为项目的整个期间，大约80天。

咨询学校为这位专家的服务接受大约800欧元($1,235)每天，团。 “团”意味所有费用(适应、食物等等)是包括的。 它是行政方便的，而且(ab)广泛使用最大化赢利飞行便宜和预算的充分车费等等。

因为咨询学校不可能本身辨认这位关键专家，这样人短缺，它转包另一所咨询学校，从同一个欧共体国家，提供人为300欧元($463)一天。

但第二个承包商也无法找到必需的专家，并且聘用一所咨询学校从巴尔干首都聘用人这时候为100欧元($154)一天。 地方企业如此，并且项目成功地被实施。

这奖金问题： How much was the engineer actually paid?

In actuality, that matters only to him or her. The entire amount will be put down as European Union aid to the Balkan country in question, however little it sees of it.

There is nothing illicit or corrupt here. Everything has gone perfectly by the book and any bitter taste such everyday practices leave behind are rarely discussed; it is not smart to bite the hand that feeds you.

A couple of months ago the European Court of Auditors presented its evaluation of CARDS (Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development, and Stabilization), the European Union’s aid package for the Balkans, worth more than 5 billion euros ($7.7 billion) in 2000-06.

The report echoed the “good in parts” language of the 2004 midterm evaluation of CARDS conducted by a consortium of consultancies. There was the routine criticism of bureaucracy, delays, over-centralization, lack of strategic guidance, all no doubt fair.

But the court also showed a degree of acerbity, pinpointing examples of money being spent in ways that had little or nothing to do with the supposed objectives. In 2003, for example, 2.8 million euros ($4.3 million) was allocated to strengthening border protection in Macedonia. It was supposed to pay for training of officials, improving recruitment, and buying sophisticated equipment for checking documents. All of it, in fact, was spent on buying vehicles.

Yet the report is silent about the elephants in the room, the overpriced Western consultancies that can eat up a few million euros quite quickly.

The system’s defenders say that only a small proportion of foreign assistance is spent in this way. But anyone involved knows there are good reasons why there has not been the—plainly overdue—thorough chicken count. They know too why there is resistance to making the whole aid business fairer and more transparent.

Hotshot international experts cost a lot. But should they be permitted to charge more in Sarajevo than they can reasonably charge in London?

And should a Harvard-educated local get so much less than an expatriate, including one who is not Harvard-educated?

The rules tend to reflect income disparities between the Balkans and the West. But the disparity between Skopje and Brussels is not 12-15 times, which can easily be the difference between local and expatriate consultant fees.

And while we are on the subject of hotshot consultants, is there really a need for quite so many of them at all? Such work, like any other type of aid delivery, should be driven by demand not supply. Some donor countries have acted on this in recent times and reduced drastically the amounts of aid spent in this way.

That consultants enrich themselves from the generosity of donor nations undermines the whole point of foreign aid. It spreads cynicism among those in the field providing aid and among donor nations.

Perhaps worst of all is the corrosive effect on citizens of the failed states that are the subject of so much generosity.

From European Voice.

Popularity: 8% [?]