With any luck, the sad and strange saga of Paul Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank will enter its final chapter this week. When he goes, and few now doubt that he will, the Bank's owners -- the nations of the world -- will have a rare opportunity to think deeply and act decisively to ensure the institution not only survives, but realizes its considerable promise. What kind of World Bank does the world really need?
Some commentators (see for example, syndicated columnist George Will’s piece: The Real World Bank Problem) have argued that it’s just fine if the Wolfowitz affair destroys the World Bank. According to this ill-informed view: good riddance. I disagree. The world badly needs an effective World Bank, for two reasons.
First, the U.S. alone cannot be the sole missionary for free markets and democracy. Bank staff bring to governments in the developing world -- many incompetent and some ridden at all levels with the curse of corruption -- solid expertise on how to foster poverty-reducing growth. Even China , India and Russia, which are flush with private capital and borrow little from the Bank, value its advice--be it on education, agriculture, debt management, or pension reform.
See full Article.
Posts
