The first book by Robert Calderisi suggests that 'the World Bank and IMF were made the fall guys because politically correct Western campaigners and political activists couldn't allow that African governments themselves were largely responsible for the mismanagement of their own economies', and argues for a more extensive and overtly political intervention by the World Bank in the future as its solution.
The second book is authored by William Easterly and, in direct contrast, it suggests the problem rests with a profound lack of responsibility in the West for any of its development plans for Africa: programs are announced with great fanfare and propaganda but their goals are largely a rhetorical statement of intent. The grand plans developed to save Africa are more a reflection of a 'narcissistic and simplistic fantasy view of Africa rather than to Africa as a complex political reality'. Thus, 'while markets and democracy are potentially useful in addressing poverty and aiding development, they cannot be imposed from outside through aid conditionality'.
What they do agree upon is that aid as currently practised is not about Africa for Africans. Africa is a great media backdrop for celebrities, pressure groups, experts without borders of all professions and the professional aid circus. It is also a source of funds for every despot and tyrant on the continent. Simply put, international aid provision today reflects neither genuine interest nor concern for Africa. And not much is going to change until we embrace a genuine political will to assist Africans to empower themselves without our direction, guidance nor values as the sub-text to our "aid". That is, we need to offer aid that benefits Africans but generates little or no political or social celebrity status for its authors. And lest anyone consider this a complete pipedream, I will characterize this as the Albert Schweitzer model for African aid.