The World Bank issued this statement yesterday:
The report from the lawyers who undertook the investigation for the World Bank to which that statement refers says:
A summary of the conclusions is this:
The allegation is that the process was corrupted.
There is much fury in the development community about this, and those who have always seen the World Bank as a neoliberal enemy are having a field day.
I admit I see things slightly differently. I am delighted by the demise of the Doing Business report. It has always promoted a profoundly inappropriate view of the world concentrating as it did on light regulation and low tax as the basis for prosperity when quite clearly what was not true. This report was part of the old Washington Consensus which the world can most definitely do without.
But does that mean that the World Bank has to be got rid of as some are suggesting? I think not. If it was it would have to be replaced with something looking remarkably like the World Bank. And whilst much of what it has done has not been especially helpful to developing countries in the past, that was true of almost all government actions, including many of those of the UK. Despite that I have not heard development spokespeople demanding we sweep away our government because of those failings which were at least as big. Not have I heard them demand the end of the state in this country because of corruption within the current government, which is all too apparent. Come to that, I did not hear them demand the end of aid agencies when it was shown that they too have failed on occasion. And compared to many governments and some NGOs the World Bank has confessed its failings and even named names.
I happen to think that the World Bank has also been an agency for good on occassion. I have seen its work to tackle corruption. And against the odds the World Bank has called for major tax reforms, including on wealth taxation. And it is promoting tax justice now.
So, what has been found looks very like corruption in the production of what was already a deeply discredited index that was of little or no real value in the world and whose time was already coming. So weed out the related corruption by all means. But those using this situation to call for the end of the World Bank really do need to understand the politics and needs of the real world. They can demand the demise of the World Bank because of its past association with the Washington Consensus, just as they demand the demise of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development because they think it anti-developing country, but the reality is that what they demand can only hinder the chances we have of dealing with the real issues that the world faces, from climate change onwards.
We can rearrange the deckchairs in the interests of political vanity, or we can get rid of corruption and use the tools we have to face the crises that exist to ensure the survival of the planet. I confess to having less and less time for those who only want survival if every box on their list of political requirements is ticked on the way. Some people need to smell the coffee. Whether we like it or not, compromise is required to make things work within the political economic domain, and far too many seem to be forgetting this.
Now is the time to focus on the issues with what we have available to do so. There is no spare decade available to reform the world's institutions before doing so and I really do wish those who want change would have the honesty to admit that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Agree. As international cooperation is essential for planetary, let alone financial/economic survival, then using existing, long-standing international institutions like the World Bank, IMF, OECD, WHO, etc makes good sense. No point in scrapping these and reinventing them. I dare say the influence of Trump and his desire to destroy or weaken international cooperation with the nonsense of “America First” and withdrawing overseas funding and his cavalier attitude to corruption has poisoned international relations and encouraged extreme nationalism which rightwingers like Johnson, Bolsanaro, Putin, Modi, et al are only too keen to follow.
“Whether we like it or not, compromise is required to make things work …”
This applies especially to the nature and climate crises which are inextricably interlinked.
As nobody can rely on life on another planet, we depend on solutions. At some level, all of us recognise this … even though most of us want to hang on to some of our luxuries.
Who could have imagined 100 years ago, that every wealthy family could own at least one of each of: a temperature-controlled house with ample space, a washing machine, a fridge, a car, a computer and a mobile phone – let alone access to international flights?
I have been campaigning about development and environmental issues for 40 years. Greta Thunberg and her supporters, together with Extinction Rebellion and theirs, have created a possibility that seemed unthinkable only three years ago.
Success (survival?) for humanity depends on giving credence to notions such as those expressed by Edwin Markham:
They drew a circle that shut me out;
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win.
We drew a circle that took them in.
Joe, thanks for the great poem with the relevant message. I had not seen it before. I am not aware of Edwin Markham. Victorian?
Id very much agree Richard.
It is possible to criticise the World Bank whilst recognising that it plays an essential role and seeking to shape that role. Just dismissing it as just a neoliberal institution is lazy and unhelpful.
I’ve been fortunate enough to have a bit of a view of the bank first hand, first with a suit on in a consultancy role, and secondly working with an NGO at a workshop on maternal health at the bank. The bank staff working on health were every bit as passionate about the topic as any NGO folk and deeply expert. The bank has also played an important role in trying to get knowledge and expertise shared across the sector and in trying to get NGOs to work together much more collaboratively. With a few exceptions the NGO sector has been very poor at this and too often regard each other as competitors, for funding space and voice.
I’d like to see the NGO sector recognise and deal with its some of its failings and not just spend time critiquing others, often from ideological rather than practical perspectives.
I agree
They might even choose the right topics to look at
In my view nothing was really wrong with the global institutions set up after the war – they remain potentially useful.
It’s a pity that they became vehicles of North American neo-liberalism.
Their potential even now is to bring nations together to stop conflict born of economic strife.
My main concern however is that rather than working together, nations seem to want go it alone or form potentially dangerous alliances and thus, as we face increasing environmental pressures and resource constraints there will be friction as nations try to grab what remains for themselves.
I don’t feel positive at all about it – we should go back and revitalise these institutions.
I agree
What especially worries me about those who are making the demands on the WB, OECD and others are that the UN replace them when it has no capacity to do so or appetite to do anything but work with them
To be blunt, the tax justice movement has moved from demanding the credible to making demands outside the parameters of possibility because the agencies they say must deliver don’t want to
That’s where extremism is located