Long gone are those days of hunger and want for Japan. As the country firmly moved towards economic advancement throughout 1960s, the income of the Japanese people first doubled, then tripled and continued to take an upward turn until the unexpected burst of the bubble economy in late 1980s reminded some of them of the bitter memories of the past.

It was also in 1980s that Japan became an important player of development initiatives in the third world as the country's Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget continued to soar with the expansion of the economy. In early 1990s Japan adopted the ODA Charter, which for the first time clearly outlined some of the basic principles and policies that Tokyo had been following in the process of providing much needed economic assistance to developing nations.

The Charter was later revised in 2003 to ensure transparency of Japanese ODA, to improve its efficiency and also to allow public participation in the process of selecting and implementing ODA projects. The revised Charter describes the objectives of ODA as measures to "contribute to the peace and development of international community, and thereby to help ensure Japan's own security and prosperity."

To ensure that ODA achieves these goals, it is essential for Japan to stop the possibility of pilferage of huge amount of budget that Japan's ODA is entrusted with. In 2002 Japan ranked number two in the world, next to the United States, in the amount of net disbursement of ODA. The ODA budget for the year amounted to $9.283 billion.

But despite such a huge budget and somehow clear commitments expressed in the ODA Charter, Japan's ODA policy had been subjected to serious criticism in the past, both at home and abroad. Critics tend to describe Japan's aid practices as being an essential tool of Tokyo's business expansion. The revised ODA Charter had taken into account such criticisms and tried to find an effective way to counter such a blanket accusation.

It is still too early to say if Tokyo had been successful in addressing such criticisms in a meaningful way. But signs are no doubt visible that a change in attitude is already having an impact on Japan's aid policy, as more emphasis is now being given to development initiatives by the country's various non-governmental bodies that by now have gained significant experience through their involvement in grass-roots level initiatives in various developing countries. Moreover, a shift of emphasis from infrastructure to human security also provides ample opportunity to think that Tokyo is sincere in her effort to ensure that ODA benefits reach the poor and vulnerable, for whose improvement most of the funding is channeled.

It is the Japanese infrastructure projects that in the past were vigorously criticized as being the means for Japanese companies and their local stooges to rip most of the benefits out of ODA allocations. The shifting trend became obvious, as Japan did not hide her intention to use the precious money first and foremost for the benefit of the Japanese people in the long run.

In a policy speech on ODA matters delivered in January this year at Japan National Press Club, Foreign Minister Taro Aso made it clear as he said: "ODA will serve no good if implemented without a warm-hearted concern for others. However, it must not be forgotten that in the end ODA is implemented for Japan's own sake."

This resulted in some new thinking in Japanese foreign ministry on how ODA is being implemented and how far the process can be improved to make sure that tax-payer money is not wasted simply for the benefit of a few vested interest groups. As a result, the Japanese foreign ministry has started to take necessary measures against companies that they have proven evidences of engagement in corrupt or fraudulent practices in Japan's ODA related projects. The ministry has recently published a list of five companies that have been branded ineligible for various ranges of periods to be awarded contract funded by Japanese grant.

The five companies against whom punitive actions have been taken are: ICONS International Cooperation Inc., NBK Corporation, Fujita Corporation, Nippon Koei Company Ltd., and Central Consultant Inc. The ministry has also ordered Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) to take equivalent measures against the companies with respect to technical cooperation projects and loan-aid projects.

Both Icons International Cooperation Inc. and NBK Corporation are accused of receiving funds allocated for a project in Kiribati before its completion. In case of Nippon Koei and Fujita Corporation, the charges are of a much more serious nature as the two companies received a completion certificate from the project executing agency of Papua New Guinea to the effect that all the works had been completed. It was later reveled that part of the construction remained incomplete.

Such malpractice in projects funded by Japanese ODA is nothing new as most of the people familiar with the mechanism of project implementations know perfectly well how things are being done. But what are new are the punitive actions now being taken against companies resorting to this kind of malpractices. A much more effective way to put a firm control over the possibilities of any repetition of fraudulence would definitely be extending the punitive measures to the other end as well.

But since in ODA projects, despite being a two-way mechanism where both donors and recipient participate, such actions remain the domain of one-way decision-making process, Japan obviously cannot take any action against the concerned project executing agency of Papua New Guinea for issuing a completion certificate of a project despite part of the work remained incomplete.

Hence, time is probably ripe now to find a way out where punitive measures too would become of trans-border nature. Unless that can be ensured, pilferages of huge amount of money would continue in one form or another, creating extreme difficulty for ODA to reach its target.