Let's pin it down. The problem with the WB is that it loans rather than grants? that a lot of its projects "fail"? that a lot of its projects are environmentally damaging? that some of its projects are structural adjustments or related to privatization/marketization? that it is dominated by the US? or that it is a front man for world capitalism which would still exist if it were to be eliminated? (or some or all of the above?)
Of course some of these could be altered or changed by pressure and reforms, the "fix it" solution. Its role as front man for global capitalism cannot be. But then, as noted above, global capitalism will still exist and function with no World Bank. 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: Friday, May 26, 2000 3:47 PM Subject: Re: WB and IMF
>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr wrote:
>
>> With respect to the debt issue, it is not my impression
>>that any of these countries have gotten into serious debt
>>problems because of WB loans. Can you name one ever?
>>It is the private banking sector loans that have gone along
>>with these that have been the problem usually.
>
>Barkley, why do you insist on implying that I or anyone like me
>thinks the WB is the sole guilty party? It's the lead dog of the
>development establishment, but it has plenty of comrades.
>
>By the way, the Meltzer commish report does have some stirring
>passages on how WB lending is a subsidy to private capital. Excellent
>reading.
>
>Doug
>