O'Neill: "WB has driven poor countries into a ditch"

[Paul_A]

Doug replied to an earlier post:
>
>>What would the US get out of doing such a thing as destroying or 
>>weakening the WB?
>
>Nothing, as far as I can tell - it makes no sense from an 
>empire-management perspective. That's why I was saying that a smooth 
>clever bourgeois like Stanley Fischer has a much better sense of how 
>crucial state power is to maintaining and expanding the rule of 
>capital than do the ideological hacks in the Bush admin. Maybe I'm 
>missing something though.
>
>Doug

Well clearly that crowd sees some advantage in a "chessboard" sort of way.
By weaking the leverage of the (largely) center/center-right "Larry
Sommers-like" World Bank they strengthen the relative hand of the more
reliably monetorist IMF.  Moving the WB towards grants also removes the
rationale for a UN role (look for a 'why should there be a UNDP' campaign?)

  ((Of course they also have designs for the IMF, but that is another story.)) 

Actually it is probably closer to something like: by giving the more
wimpish BWI wing a good kick it reminds them that Sommers (never mind
Stiglitz) should be left far behind.  We should also remember that
Wolfonson is a Clinton appointee so its fair game;  once they get their own
person in there (and this might speed that up) then it is much harder to
pull some of the rug out. 

Plus, of course it throws a bone to the more isolationist right and reminds
Europe and Japan that they shouldn't demand too much from U.S. multilateral
participation.

Their calculation should not be ours, but I would imagine it runs along
these lines.

Paul