> I am curious. Please give some examples of
>nasty adjustment loans the WB has been involved in.
>I am seriously curious. It may be that the Metzler
>Commission is right about this aspect: make the WB
>go back to its original function.
Read their annual reports. There's a summary of adjustment lending at <http://www.worldbank.org/html/extpb/annrep/sum9.htm>; an overview of the lending mix at <http://www.worldbank.org/html/extpb/annrep/lending.htm>.
> I don't think the WB can be held responsible for the
>fact that global income distribution has become more
>unequal.
Not solely responsible, but they're part of the machinery.
Back during the heat of the Asian crisis, a WB official complained that the other players - the IMF and the U.S. Treasury in particular - were using the Bank as an ATM to fund their bailout/restructuring schemes.
> Most of its efforts have been directed at raising
>incomes in poorer countries. These may not have been as
>successful as most would like,
Internal WB audits estimate that 50-70% of their projects fail by their own criteria. "There's no success like failure, but failure's no success at all"?
> but unless one can show that
>they actually worsened the situations of those countries, I
>don't think the WB can be held responsible for the more general
>outcome. I do think the IMF can be held so responsible, at
>least to some extent.
They work together, like a good cop/bad cop pair. You can't separate them that easily.
I'd say that when an institution has as its main goal the raising of incomes among the poor and the eradication of poverty, and the poor go nowhere or end up worse off, then they've failed. They're not the only guilty parties, but they're co-conspirators.
> BTW, the best study on global income inequality was put
>out by a WB staffer, as you know, Branko Milanovic (we should
>probably keep our voices down so that he does not get fired...!!!).
Like I said, there are many people at the WB who aim to do good. But they answer to Wolfie and Larry and their bondholders, which puts a rather severe crimp on their style.
Doug