Rescuing World Bank

NEW World Bank chief Robert Zoellick has been quick in improving the institution’s damaged reputation that he inherited from his predecessor. Even though Paul Wolfowitz’ excesses had little to do with the Bank’s core functioning, it is precisely in that department that the new incumbent has concentrated his efforts. And he’s doing just fine so far.

Recently, he caught attention for the right reason for a change while advocating for a pronounced shift in the Bank’s functioning, implying a shift from conventional mega-project-facilitation to laying foundations of a more positively integrated global economy. Now his call to members of the Bank’s sister organisation, the IMF, to pay off Liberia’s outstanding debt is again reflective of his economic vision, and leading International Financial Institutions’ (IFI) role in the process.

It is about time that torchbearers of the Western economic model realised its limits. For one thing, the economic/financial engagement with lesser developed economies has yet to produce success stories of note, and the IMF, WTO and World Bank have mostly left behind larger irregularities than they sought to correct. Secondly, the entire system governing interest ridden debt structures is grossly unfair and ends up putting unbearable back-bearing pressure on already struggling economic systems.

Of late, there has been considerable high-level talk of debt relief for the poor economies. But it is unfortunate that such endeavours have rarely moved beyond politically motivated photo ops to meaningful on-ground implementation.

It is important to note that the transformation of approach of sorts that Zoellick is hinting at embodies the basic ill of modern economics that has been allowed to unfairly linger for far too long, both on the macro and micro levels. It is when progressive change is initiated at the lower spectrum that the down-up model will kick-start and jump into action.

Rich countries resisting Zoellick’s Liberia approach need reminding that they hold back Third World empowerment only to their own disadvantage. Failing the latter’s progress, the globalistaion process will remain skewed, unfair and incomplete at best.

Zoellick’s approach needs expansion, in accordance with results of course. His lackluster record as US trade representative perhaps owed to defending a faulty and exploitative official US economic stance in the first place, much like its political foreign policy. At the Bank, he has greater room for manoeuvreability. And it’s about time the institution’s inestimable resources, financial and in kind, are brought to fitting use.