En una de las notas se propone, por ejemplo, reformar el sistema de cooperación internacional para involucrar más a los países "consumidores" en un esquema más accountable:
It would begin — indeed it has already begun — among middle-income countries. Many of those in Latin America and Asia, including China and India, already pay their way, although not entirely eschewing aid. Their private enterprises, at which “aid for trade” must ultimately be aimed, are ready to pay for trade information, advice and training. Turning recipients into consumers will be helped by adding new sources of purchasing power.
A common global pooling system, which donors might agree to fund from part of their aid budgets, has already been mooted. Parties in developing countries would apply for funds from the pool and use them to procure development services from the sources of their choice. Alternatively, the pool could issue vouchers to be distributed in developing countries, to cash with preferred partners.(...)
Making aid more effective is all about turning recipients into consumers. Let developing countries make their own choices with more of their own resources. There is much pious talk these days about “country ownership”. But it won’t come merely from exhortation to donors to give more space to “recipients”. Central planning systems can be reformed, but they are no substitute for the market. Hasn’t history taught us that?