The whole sorry affair surrounding World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz looks like it is finally drawing to a close. It is hard to believe that he will stay on much longer at the bank and it is time to start thinking more about the institution's future direction.
I was critical from the beginning of the way Wolfowitz was chosen because I have long opposed the "old boy" agreement between the US and Europe, by which the US always appoints the head of the World Bank and Europe the head of the IMF.
This unspoken arrangement dates from the founding of the Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, institution at a time when colonialism was still alive, and makes no sense in the 21st century.
There are reports that European leaders have told the US that if they get Wolfowitz to step down quickly and quietly, the US will be allowed to choose Wolfowitz's successor. It's easy to see why the US and Europe want to stick to business as usual, but such a deal would amount to a wasted opportunity.
confidence needed
I can think of no better way to restore confidence in these two venerable institutions than to finally open up the way their presidents are selected.
One of the lessons of the Wolfowitz debacle is that it does actually matter how stakeholders and employees feel about the bank's leadership. The world was prejudiced against him from the start because of his involvement in the Iraq War, but people were willing to give him a chance.
Some said that perhaps he would be another Robert McNamara, the former US defense secretary who helped mire the US in the Vietnam War, but used his service to the bank as penance.
At first, there was reason for hope, as Wolfowitz forcefully argued for debt forgiveness and an end to agricultural subsidies. But he also hired old friends and political allies -- many of whom did not have experience in development -- and sealed himself off from his staff, alienating the very people whose support he needed.
Relationships inside institutions are important, and in this respect, Wolfowitz, while by all accounts an intelligent and pleasant person, did not do himself any favors.
Furthermore, Wolfowitz did not seem to have a grand vision for the bank. Instead of a development strategy, there was simply an expansion of the anti-corruption agenda initiated by his predecessor, James Wolfensohn.
As the World Bank's chief economist under Wolfensohn, I argued that failing to deal with corruption risked undermining growth and poverty alleviation. By the time I left the Bank, these ideas were widely accepted and I was pleased that Wolfowitz supported continuing the Bank's efforts.
only one part
But the fight against corruption was always meant to be only one part of a more comprehensive development agenda that was required. Indeed, aid effectiveness could be undermined just as much by incompetence as by corruption.
Sadly, the anti-corruption agenda of the bank became politicized. There was a push to give money to Iraq -- a country rife with corruption -- while other countries were accused of corruption without adequate hard evidence or specific details. The aims of the Iraq campaign were laudable, but it generated hostility and ill will, undermining its effectiveness.
The World Bank, in its efforts to support democracy and good governance, must insist on the highest standards of due process -- charges of corruption should be treated seriously and the evidence turned over to national authorities for use in open, transparent and independent proceedings. This is something Wolfowitz's successor must bear in mind. If anti-corruption campaigns are to be seen as effective, they must be fair and transparent.
The same is true of the selection of the World Bank's president. There is still a chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. What has been a sad and sorry saga could have a happy ending if Wolfowitz's successor is chosen in an open, transparent process. This, one hopes, is the silver lining in the cloud now hanging over the World Bank.
Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry