| 2015is both the deadline of Millennium Development Goal（sMDGs）and the timeto evaluate the fruits of international assistance. For the emerging donors like China,despite their strong and rapid development of foreign assistance in quantity, there islittle attention paid to the quality of assistance. Instead, most researches are stillfocused on studying the macro topics including reasons and methods of aid.Meanwhile, although the traditional donors have studied the aid effectiveness for along time, they cannot ensure the aid effectiveness in practice.To differ from “results-oriented” and to change the mainstream of researches whichadopt Economics and Statistics Methods when evaluating aid effectiveness, this paperaims to comparing “procedure of aid” instead of “results of aid” by putting forwardthree standards, that is “ownership”,“aid coordination” and “aid transparency”. Bycomparing America’s and China’s foreign aid policy towards Myanmar, it’s easy toconclude the differences on the aid effectiveness between these two kinds of foreignaid, that is America leading traditional donors or OECD-DAC donors and Chinaleading emerging donors or non OECD-DAC donors. But these differences are alsobelieved to make two kinds of aid system be complementary to each other. To digdeeper, those differences were found to origin from their own history and period ofdevelopment. Meanwhile, the receipt’s role should be taken into consideration. Sincethe status would last in near future.This paper dares to offer some suggestions onimproving China’s aid system by firstly, polish the current aid system in management,coordination of departments, legislation; secondly, enhance the interaction withrecepiets in operator, content, dialog, channel, feedback, result evaluation; lastly,adapt to the international norms in a more positive way by exploring “south-southcooperation” and”south-north cooperation” and take a leading and constructive rolein“south-south cooperation”. |
PDF Full Text Request