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
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS