Skip to main content

Efforts to reform the World Bank


 Such efforts tend to go in circles. Today's reform is to undo yesterday's reform, and tomorrow's reform will be to recreate the one that we undid today. 

It doesn't work day-to-day though.  But year by year and decade by decade.

This is one conclusion one draws from the book REFORMING THE WORLD BANK: TWENTY YEARS OF TRIAL -- AND ERROR by David A, Phillips,

The"20 years" number in the subtitle indicates that Phillips focuses especially upon the period 1986 -- 2006, beginning with the appointment of Barber Conable, a former member of the US House of Representatives.  That was a time of great concern about Latin American indebtedness to the big New York and London banks, and worry about what a wave of defaults would do to those institutions. That concern led to the Baker plan in the middle of the decade, followed by the creation of "Brady bonds" to allow debt relief short of open default. 

In this fraught context, Conable immediately hired an outside consulting firm to advise him on what organization changes needed to be made to the Bank.  

I've already clued you in to Phillips' conclusion, which is that the waves of re-engineering then and over the following twenty years  each had more negative than positive effects. They had left the bank "more bureaucratic, more enmeshed in confusing objectives, more hostage to outside pressure, and more subject to overcomplex projects" than it had been before.  

What they have NOT made it is better positioned to fight poverty. What they also have not done is to make themselves better at promoting development.

Indeed, those are two very different projects, and they sometimes get in each others' way. To speak generically: a policy of helping country X develop/industrialize may well involve putting money into the hands of some of the relatively well-off residents of X. That in turn may make them better able to pay off bonds reliably over time to the World Bank and the sort of private sector institutions that required help from Baker and Brady. 

The recipients of loans to build a hydroelectric dam will not be starving folks in need of imminent rescue. The two goals are so different they should probably be addressed by different institutions so as not to get in each others' way.  This seems to be Phillips point. 

 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
22 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...
Post a Comment
Read more