Thinking about Carter and how he says he just didn't realize that the guns he authorized the US to sell to Indonesia were being used to suppress the East Timorese; I also remembered reading that Boutros Boutros Gali, the former UN Secretary General candidly admitting that he wasn't aware initially of how much the US used simple Power Politics in its diplomacy.
It further reminded me of an interchange via email I had with a PhD from MIT about the World Bank, and what its intentions were and the effect that good people doing good work could have working inside the bank-inside the system as it were. I just found the dialogue, and I thought I'd reprint my final response for posterity.
Fred,
I was a high school science teacher for the first two years, and now
I'm looking at air quality models for the Northeast States.
I was half-joking when I said they've only found out now that
inequality hinders development. I'm sure people must have realized
long ago those connections, but it seems like such a fundamental
underlying theme that if the Bank had been operating with this mindset
(which I don;t believe they have been looking at their results) then
they would have been saying this all along, and what's more, it should
have been evident from their projects, which of course, it hasn't. So
perhaps they've known about equality and development, but that
knowledge is meaningless if it's not implemented. This was more my
sentiment.
No doubt they are paying more attention to environmental affects of
their projects; both the Extractive Industries Review and the World
Bank Commission on Large Dams point to this. But again, when it comes
time to implementing, the Bank tends not to give any creedance to
these lessons. So they are lessons learned, but still history repeats
itself; why? Also, in the overview, I noticed a lack of
self-reflection (perhaps its in the report itself) of how the banks
policies have promoted inequality throughout the world. Obviously it
is a large actor that has had much influence on the development scene
in the last fifty years. If it doesn't try to take some
responsibility for the state of the world today, how do they know
which policies to change, or how do we citizens judge if they are
even interested in changing any policies at all? For example, Joe
Stiglitz' book was very critical of the IMF and rightly so though he
was a World Bank economist and he had virutally no criticism for his
own institution. Is the reader supposed to take from this that it's
only the IMF that needs to change its thinking?
I'd be intereseted in knowing what kinds of different models are out
there, specifically what is the range of models usually considered for
bank projects. The market model is the most well-known to me...is
this or some variation most favored by the Bank? Obviously there are
going to be models picked more than others, and there are going to be
models that are not even considered. In your estimation, overall is
the Bank favoring big project solutions or small local-level
solutions?
I have no doubt that there are smart, well-meaning people at the Bank
working on projects that do truly help people. I have no doubt that
they are coming up with fantastic models to cure disease, alleviate
poverty and make the world a better place. It's not the people at the
Bank I see as the problem, but rather the structure of how decisions
are made, who makes the decisions, who funds the bank, where the money
goes etc.
"Dying for Growth" is a survey of the health of people in the Global South.
"Neoliberalism or Democracy" is a good book about the effects that the
policies coming out of the Washington consensus have had on different
countries.
I've read, though I haven't checked on this, that for every dollar
that goes to the global south countries towards aid, two dollars comes
back to the global north countries through debt servicing. (maybe you
know where I could find out statistics of that nature) A good portion
of these nations' GDP goes toward debt payment. Do you know how
countries came to be entrenched, almost enslaved, in debt this way?
It;s a very interesting history that sheds light on the current state
of affairs. "A Dark Victory" is a hard to find book but it finally
answered my questions about how the debts originated. I can get into
more detail perhaps later.
Now what I've read about the actual practice of water privatization
(not the theory) is that the companies begin charging for what was
previously free, the quality of the water service (availability)
itself has been questionable in several places, and the people who
disagree with privatization of their water find it difficult to find
redress for their grievances. On this last point I;m thinking
specifically of Bolivia and the mass revolt that had to happen in
order for the state to kick Bectel out of the water game there. It
might be acceptable for us white men to criticize the bank via email,
but for people on the ground who are most invested in these projects,
they critcize and some pay with their lives. "Water Wars" by Vandana
Shiva is another book this time about water privatization and its
effects. On paper, a 'private entity' independent from the
'bureaucratic inept state' sounds nice, but the fact is that a
multinational corporation has even less accountability to the people,
less involvement in the actual implementation and maintenence
(contractors) than the states that they serve.
> I am not trying to argue that the institutions we have
>are perfect and in no need of change.
Nor am I trying to argue that they should be perfect. But if they are
going to be a huge lending agency with an aim to alleviate poverty
then after fifty years they should have something to show for it. If
their aim, which I believe it is, is to promote western interests in
the Global South by implementing a 'development' that just so happens
to benefit the lenders, either by opening markets, extracting natural
resources, or exploiting cheap labor for (western) multinational
corporations, a 'development' that further keeps people sick,
dependent on aid, then that institution should not be touting itself
as a body that seeks to alleviate poverty. And it is my opinion that
such an institution should not even exist.
Notwithstanding all the 'hard-working and well meaning individuals'
they're still operating within a structure that serves the interests
of the rulers. The rules of the game were set long ago and though
they may change and 'improve' with time even to the point of actually
helping people, you will find that the extent of the change will be
determined by the interests of the rulers. This is my main point (the
rest is simply evidence) even though it seems a truth too obvious to
mention.
Looking forward,
Mike
On 10/7/05, Frederic Chagnon <frederic@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Sorry for the late response. I've been travelling in search of job
> opportunities. BTW, what have you been doing since the MEng?
>
I was a high school science teacher for the first two years, and now
I;m looking at air quality models for the Northeast States.
> I too just read the overview of the WDR, although I'm not sure that I
> interpret it as you do. I don't think that they just now found out
> that inequality is bad for development. I just think that they chose
> this topic as the main focus of this year's report, as they have
> chosen other focus topics in previous reports. You may disagree with
> this strategy of focussing on specific issues each year instead of
> writing reports covering all issues. It seems too easy to me to just
> criticise the report by saying that it took them too long to tackle
> the issue of inequality.
i was half-joking when I said they've only found out now that
inequality hinders development. I'm sure people must have realized
long ago those connections, but it seems like such a fundamental
underlying theme that if the Bank had been operating with this mindset
(which I don;t believe they have been looking at their results) then
they would have been saying this all along, and what's more, it should
have been evident from their projects, which of course, it hasn't. So
perhaps they've known about equality and development, but that
knowledge is meaningless if it's not implemented. This was more my
sentiment.
>
> I've browsed around the sites that you referred to me, and they raise
> important issues. I was struck by this on the 50years website:
>
> "The World Bank and IMF should also incorporate into their planning
> and decision-making processes the value of natural resources and
> ecosystems to be depleted and/or degraded by policy prescriptions
> and, in the case of the Bank, the project lending portfolio. For
> example, natural resource accounting should be incorporated into
> country programming and loan appraisals."
>
> In my very short experience working on Bank projects, I have been
> amazed at how attentive they are to environmental impacts. Perhaps
> they were oblivious to these concerns in the past --- as most
> governments were, whether in developed or developing countries ---
> but they are certainly making efforts to pay attention to these
> issues now. There is still a lot of progress to be made on how we
No doubt they are paying more attention to environmental affects of
their projects; both the Extractive Industries Review and the World
Bank Commission on Large Dams point to this. But again, when it comes
time to implementing, the Bank tends not to give any creedance to
these lessons. So they are lessons learned, but still history repeats
itself; why? Also, in the overview, I noticed a lack of
self-reflection (perhaps its in the report itself) of how the banks
policies have promoted inequality throughout the world. Obviously it
is a large actor that has had much influence on the development scene
in the last fifty years. If it doesn't try to take some
responsibility for the state of the world today, how do they know
which policies to change, or how do we citizens judge if they are
even interested in changing any policies at all? For example, Joe
Stiglitz' book was very critical of the IMF and rightly so though he
was a World Bank economist and he had virutally no criticism for his
own institution. Is the reader supposed to take from this that it's
only the IMF that needs to change its thinking?
> account for the environment. The notion of "ecosystem services" is
> still very much an academic one, and it needs to be transfered to
> practise.
>
> As far as the "neo-liberal cookie-cutter policies of privatization of
> water resources", I disagree. I gave a presentation on decisions to
> be made when developing water/wastewater infrastructure, and
> approached the institutional aspects by presenting both "private" vs.
> "public" operation models and the myriad of other institutional
I'd be intereseted in knowing what kinds of different models are out
there, specifically what is the range of models usually considered for
bank projects. The market model is the most well-known to me...is
this or some variation most favored by the Bank? Obviously there are
going to be models picked more than others, and there are going to be
models that are not even considered. In your estimation, overall is
the Bank favoring big project solutions or small local-level
solutions?
> arrangements between these two models. Two weeks ago, I met a woman
> who works for the WB Water & Sanitation Program in Mumbai. She was
> telling me of her latest project, in which they were attempting to
> bring safe sanitation in the slums of Mumbai. Their model was rather
> interesting: they worked with groups of women who assembled
> themselves to operate and manage public latrines. These latrines were
> apparently very well operated, were used as centers to teach about
> sanitation and public health. Some had even developed attached
> service centers (one had used the extra space for an internet cafe
> type operation that was apparently highly successful.) This example
> does not fall within the "public" or "private" model, and was fully
> funded by the WB.
I have no doubt that there are smart, well-meaning people at the Bank
working on projects that do truly help people. I have no doubt that
they are coming up with fantastic models to cure disease, alleviate
poverty and make the world a better place. It's not the people at the
Bank I see as the problem, but rather the structure of how decisions
are made, who makes the decisions, who funds the bank, where the money
goes etc.
"Dying for Growth" is a survey of the health of people in the Global South.
"Neoliberalism or Democracy" is a good book about the effects that the
policies coming out of the Washington consensus have had on different
countries.
I've read, though I haven't checked on this, that for every dollar
that goes to the global south countries towards aid, two dollars comes
back to the global north countries through debt servicing. (maybe you
know where I could find out statistics of that nature) A good portion
of these nations' GDP goes toward debt payment. Do you know how
countries came to be entrenched, almost enslaved, in debt this way?
It;s a very interesting history that sheds light on the current state.
"A Dark Victory" is a hard to find book but it finally answered my
questions about how the debts originated.
>
> This said, I do think that for large water/wastewater projects, there
> is a strong case to be made for "private" participation. For one, it
> is a conflict of interest to have the public sector operate and
> control/verify at the same time. For example, it seems evident to me
> that the institution that makes sure that effluent standards are met
> should be separate from the institution that operates the wastewater
> treatment plant. The public sector is highly adapted at setting these
> standards and enforcing them on behalf of the people they represent.
> The public sector is however generally inept at building and
> operating complex infrastructure. I see nothing wrong in having an
> independent entity be the steward for XX years of the water/
> wastewater service. Such arrangements can be made so as to ensure
> that a safe basic service is provided to all. This said, it is
> certainly not a panacea and most certainly not applicable everywhere.
What I've read about water privatization is that companies begin
charging for what was previously free, the quality of the water
service itself has been questionable in several places, and the people
who disagree with privatization of their water find it difficult to
find redress for their grievances. On this last point I;m thinking
specifically of Bolivia and the mass revolt that had to happen in
order for the state to kick Bectel out of the water game there. It
might be acceptable for us white men to criticize the bank via email,
but for people on the ground who are most invested in these projects,
they critcize and some pay with their lives. "Water Wars" by Vandana
Shiva is another book this time about water privatization and its
effects. On paper, a 'private entity' independent from the
'bureaucratic inept state' sounds nice, but the fact is that a
multinational corporation has even less accountability to the people,
less involvement in the actual implementation and maintenence
(contractors) than the albeit corrupt states that they serve.
>
> In general, I am not trying to argue that the institutions we have
> are perfect and in no need of change. We do need to make them better
Nor am I trying to argue that they should be perfect. But if they are
going to be a huge lending agency with an aim to alleviate poverty
then after fifty years they should have something to show for it. If
there aim is to promote western interests in the Global South by
implementing a 'development' that just so happens to benefit the
lenders, either by opening markets, extracting natural resources, or
exploiting cheap labor for (western) multinational corporations, a
'development' that further keeps people sick, dependent on aid, then
that institution should not be touting itself as a body that seeks to
alleviate poverty. And it is my opinion that such an institution
should not even exist.
> at serving the poor and enabling them to have better healthier lives.
> I think it is necessary to keep on criticising these institutions and
> suggesting ways to improve them. But I do think they are important
> and should not be destroyed. There are so few strong multilateral
What does 'important' mean?
> organisations, and the ones we have are in my opinion too weak and
> not independent enough. Reforms are certainly necessary in the
> governance of these institutions --- they need to have much more
> independence form the donor countries and should not be used as tools
> for foreign policy. But throughout the ranks, these institutions are
> populated with hard-working and well meaning individuals who make it
> their goal to improve our world, and I really believe that we can
> continually improve them.
>
Notwithstanding all the 'hard-working and well meaning individuals'
they're still operating within a structure that serves the interests
of the rulers.
