world_bank

In the 1970s and 1980s the World Bank imposed Structural Adjustment Programmes on developing countries in return for development loans. The term 'structural adjustment' meant reduction in public spending, privatisation of essential services and the opening up 'free markets' and 'free trade zones' to global enterprises. The consequence of this was a reduced standard of living for the poor. It particularly impacted on women's lives, the health and well-being of their children and their own opportunities for employment. Many still work as wage slaves in the sweatshops and /or as prostitutes in the 'free-trade zones'. Free for whom? we ask. Third World countries ran up enormous debts for programmes that simply made them poorer.

In the 1990s we saw the World Bank develop its 'soft' approach. This has brought about the imposition of Poverty Reduction Strategy Plans (these are supposed to be drawn up in collaboration with each national government, but interestingly, they all look alike...). And surprisingly enough, the PRSPs also include privatisation of essential services, foreign investment etc.

A recent report identified that the World Bank spends 40% of its money on international consultants. This may well be necessary, as WB staff themselves rarely go into the field, after all, they're economists, they don't have an understanding of how people actually live, how things happen on the ground. And they publish wonderful consultancy reports with lessons and recommendations. But the lessons are never applied! the World Bank simply continues relentlessly in the same direction.

One example is World Bank stewardship of universal primary education - which is one of the Millennium Development Goals for 2015. A substantial number of countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, are not going to meet this target. Why? Economic analysis shows that if a country actually managed to build enough schools for all its children, they would still not be able to pay all the teachers required. The WB solution is to pay teachers less. Unions are obviously against this. At present more children are going to school but, because of lack of more trained teachers, this greater access to education results in decreased quality of learning.

There's a new term for this sort of cock-up: 'incompatible objectives'. You cannot be serious!! We all know that a man can't shoot two targets at the same time with the same gun (unless the targets are one behind the other, in which case they are not incompatible. Or the bullet riccochets off the first target, in which case the second target it hits is probably the wrong one!) Yet young male economic experts use this term without irony. WE think there is need for some serious structural re-adjustment here!

And we still find it difficult to understand why EU countries don't seem to be able to influence the WB. It's a UN agency, we're all stakeholders, aren't we? It's not an autonomous body - or is it? Do they agree with what it's doing? We tend to think not...