[PEN-L:6886] WB at the ISS: a non-objective report

["Alex Izurieta" <izurieta@xxxxxx>]

Because I wanted you to have premier...

Visit of WB president J.Wolfensohn to the Institute of Social Studies,
Den Haag, 24th October 1996.

A `non-objective' briefing.

JW made an initial speech of some 20 min., which was followed by a
question and answer session. He performed quite well, ...for the
ignorant observer. That is to say, the tone and the wording `sounded
very convincing'; it was sometimes even `emotive', to the extent that
it was possible to gather some faith from the public in this new WB
management and `profundly sincere' intentions.

In his initial presentation, five main points were raised:
1) The new context (he preferred the word `environment', possibly for
its `politically correct' connotation...) in which the WB -and the
world- is. This referred basically to the fact that `except with very
few exceptions', the whole world is driven by the `free enterprise
system'. As far as the WB is concerned, the WB is feeling more than
before that there is a degree of financial constraint. Moreover, at
present private sectors flows to the Third World are 3 times that as
from official sources. In this new `environment', in which JW's speech
concentrated heavily on financing and on where the funds come from
(possibly to help us understand that the WB cannot disappoint the
donors...), there was a discernable importance given to a higher
degree of democracy and openess. Correspondingly, the WB wants to work
more with the `civil society', which the Bank identifies almost
tautologically with NGOs. In this respect, it was also made explicit
that the WB is seeking to strengthen this partenership by placing a
special liasion officer in practically every country office. 2) In an
apparently massive operational change, where the WB used to work out
its projects in terms of `approval' (and, as clarified in a later
question, a five-step approval which at the end leaves behind the
original project officers that generated the project, and therefore
frees them of any further responsibility), the WB now to shorten the
approval process and work on the basis of `results'. It was
insistently put forward that the WB staff should be subject to the
same `efficiency' tests that ocurr in the market place...; and that
the WB be able to drop projects where results are not evident. 3)
Ironically enough, JW insisted very much, in his third point, that `we
do not know what effectiveness is' (of course, it was made clear that
they are studying it very hard...). 4) The fourth point was rather
similar to the third one: not only is the bank ignorant about what
effectiveness is but it is also puzzled as to *how* to be more
effective (this is my own wording, of course, he was more subtle). Of
course, the matter here is that while the WB is `doing something about
it', it seems to others easier to criticize it... In this respect,
apparent new `findings' at the WB headquarters are the `relevance' of
the local (as opposed to `global'..., whatever this may mean), and the
attention that the WB wants to give to the `civil society' (which, as
I pointed out already, was narrowly associated with NGOs)

5) ...and this is an `alarming one' ( IM-in this case not humble-0):
the WB is preparing the future to come by developing a very powerful
(ubiquitous) network of electronical sites through which it can be
connected -via 5 satellites already in the making- all over the world.
That means, more specifically, to aim at becoming a powerful worldwide
electronic database, but *also* to develop a network in an interactive
basis through which the WB can teach and train... It was also
mentioned that already 33 interactive worldwide classrooms are
forthcoming... In practice, it is going to become the `intellectual
panacea for the mainstream!! Of course, I (your atonished reporter) am
still puzzled about what are they going to teach, if they do not yet
know *what* is efficient results, nor *how* is it to be achieved...

But my doubts were fully clarified with the round of questions and
answers:

Let me summarize this part even more by indicating the most clear-cut
arguments (for the rest, JW was very handy at showing a very humble
attitude and conceding to many of the obvious statements, or at lying
when it was appropriate...).

Upon `provocation' from someone who intended to argue that the WB has
recognized that structural adjustment has proved to be a failure, JW
stated that -though he continuosly questions himself and the WB's
SAPs- he will never agree that these were a failure, but that they
`can improve' (I noticed the difference here w.r.t.Cason and Brooks'
report in La Jornada, in which WB's president said that he wants to
know whether what they are doing is good or bad; now it appears that
they know that it is not bad, but that it can be improved..., or
deepened????). In a more known argumentation (at least for those who
studied the WB/IMF paraphernalia at lenght), JW emphasised that SAPs
depend very much on who puts them in practice, how are they applied,
the timinng etc...

In facing questions about poverty, JW was `recurrently emphatic' at
arguing that poverty alleviation is for him and for the WB in its
totality *the* objective. In the same level are also `social justice'
and `human rights' (undefined during the speech, probalby because of
time constraints...).

On the conditionality issue, WB's gut level feeling is that there can
be no universal `conditionality' nor a unilateral determination, but
that the conditions for each and every loan and programme are the
result of agreement between the parties concerned. And of course, the
WB is open to criticism in order to improve its image of an
open-minded organisation; it is in this sense that the WB is keen to
receive inputs not only from governments during negotiations, but also
from the civil society (read NGOs; well ... he also mentioned the ISS,
I think not because of its relevance, but because he has a strong
survival instinct...)

Further JW's responses -appeared to take the `middle' road - and yet
sounded very unambiguous to me: `it is better to have policies than
chaos'. The harshness was softened by emphasising that the WB was
interested in improving by seeking agreement with partners (even
though, according to him, the agreement was always there, the point is
that it was often presented by some governments as if it were imposed
to them so that they are not responsible for the consequences before
the electorate...). So, there was no scope for doubt on this issue,
you put on the one side the WB 'policies, and on the other side the
`chaos', and you choose. Of course, JW `cured himself in health' (as
we say in Spanish) by stating -once he was questioned about their
rigid neoclassical framework, and that in, e.g. WB's poverty
assessments on African countries, no matter what the cause of poverty
is the remedies proposed were always following the same recipe- that
the WB does not have `*any* pre-built theoretical framework; you may
believe it or not -he say- we are not a right wing institution trying
to rule the world'.

*************

Summarizing, it was a master's lecture, `sincere and humble', in which
the WB was shown to be deeply concerned with poverty, wanting to
achieve results and inviting the agreement of civil society (NGOs) in
order to avoid World chaos and increasing poverty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```

Salud,

Alex








Alex Izurieta
E-mail: izurieta@xxxxxx
Institute of Social Studies
P.O. Box 29776
2502 LT The Hague
Tel. 31-70-4260480
Fax. 31-70-4260.755
           4260.799