Just scanned the annual report website. Looks like a mixed bag to me. There is quite a bit of "support for macroeconomic stabilization" which looks like IMF stuff. I agree. They should get out of that. There is also a lot of "support" for obvious moves to market capitalism, privatization programs, etc. I lack enthusiasm for this stuff too.
But, there is also a lot of support for infrastructure rebuilding after disasters and in quite a few cases, support for maintaining social safety nets. It does not all look so bad to me. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 1:05 PM Subject: Re: WB and IMF
>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr wrote:
>
>> 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
>