>Earlier Doug posted this: 'In fact, Wolfensohn agrees with many of their
>concerns and wants to bring the demonstrators into the tent of global
>problem-solving, rather than holding them at bay at the end of a police
>truncheon.'
>
>Probably the question is what are pro-poor softies doing at the World
>Bank anyway? Is this really conceivable as a vehicle for progressive
>politics? My reading of the spat over the WDR and the resignations was
>that it was more of a friendly squabble than a difference of principle.
James, your normal skepticism seems to be on leave. Wolfie & the WB are masters of PR, and of seducing some of their more sluttish critics. You find some of the more compromised NGOs, make a great show of "listening" to them, pump out some sensitive-sounding reports, and continue financing the imperial march of capital across the globe behind all the pleasant smoke. Stiglitz & Kanbur were arguing that growth was not enough, and that policy had to tilt actively toward the poor. This was unacceptable to Summers & the rest of the U.S. government, which believes in the virtues of growth alone. Had the Nation not cut this part of my piece, I would have gone into some detail. The upside of that cut is that I will go into some detail in the LBO I'm working on now, the resurrection issue.
Doug