Sir, keep your eyes on the ball!

Sir, I agree with every word you say in your editorial “The Word Bank after Wolfowitz” May 19, except perhaps for what could be implied by the title, that of drawing a historical line around one person. The same way that we frequently hear that countries get the president they deserve, perhaps the world has the World Bank it deserves.

What could be done? In my world, if we want good government results that have a chance of doing what is humanly good for humanity, in a shrinking world, that could only happen through more credible and better governed multinational institutions. But in this case, while rolling up or shirtsleeves to get going, we must also learn about how to prioritize our efforts. Instead of beating the good guy on the head, just because he is more amenable to being beaten on the head, and start with a World Bank that no matter Wolfowitz in relative terms still stands out as a shining example of good governance in the world, we should all concentrate more on where good governance is much more lacking and much more needed, namely the United Nations. Sir, may I humbly suggest, you help us keep our eyes on the ball!

A certified independent's view on World Bank reforms

Sir, Inder Sud in his letter “The prime World Bank issue is reforming board’s procedures” May 19, ends by saying that “What is important is to ensure that the board is truly independent and is specifically empowered to provide oversight.” Sounds nice, but that’s about it. Being arguably among the most independent Executive Director the World Bank has ever seen, having been nominated through a procedure initiate on the web by a government going through chaotic times and that when later regretting such appointment found out it was then too late to do something about it, I should perhaps know a bit or two about that issue. What on earth is independent and free of conflict of interests? In my country and yours too, perhaps some shoe-shiners could meet these criteria. And as to being empowered, the board is so more than enough, and what is missing is to make that empowerment more effective.

And in this I am in total agreement with Mr Sud, the procedures of the board need to be revised. The Executive Directors are so drowned in paper and asked to opine on so many issues, that in fact they almost mean nothing. Who is to blame and whether this could just be a Machiavellian device of management to render the board ineffective in its controls is something we could discuss another day but for me, the most important reform the World Bank board of Executives could do, is to demand from management a list of the ten best and ten worst programs or the Bank in order to dedicate themselves to scaling up the good and weeding out the irremediable bad, instead of losing so much time on the middle grey which in fact should be almost exclusively management territory.

As for a good mix at the Board I am all for it, and having a couple of independent lose cannon minds there to really question and plenty of dependant minds to anchor them back into realities, sound like the best alternative. Civil society? Why not, whatever that now means, but in an increasing global world I have also been suggesting that the global migrant working community and the multinational corporations needs to be represented.

As for the Presidency? Why not have donors bid for it and raise some money! Jest aside, though he clearly should be an independent, he should not be so much that he distances the World Bank from the real world. That no one can afford!

Per Kurowski
Former Executive Director of the World Bank
Chairman of the Voice and Noise Foundation for International Development and Global Strategic Studies.

And now it is for the World Bank to convince the world that it was more than about politics

Sir, now when after so much procrastination, by all, Wolfowitz has finally resigned it is now the World Bank’s turn to convince the world that all this was indeed an institutional fight over what is right or wrong, and not some political bickering against an unpopular president.

Having had the privilege to act as an Executive Director of the World Bank (2002-2004), I am truly convinced of the high human quality of all its people but, given that out there, for instance in the world of blogs, there exist so many 100% professional haters who don’t care a iota for the World Bank as long as they get their sweet revenge on Bush or Wolfowitz, now the World Bank’s directors, staff and managers must act decisively on the fundamental governance issues, so as to distance themselves as much as possible from these loonies.

One of the first tasks has to be to review the whole concept of external assignments or secondments, since it beats me how it could have reached that point where someone could even have thought of this as a useful instrument for removing to a distant place a conflict of interest of the President, at the expense of the World Bank. Can you even think of a listed corporation trying to argue with the IRS about the deductibility of salaries paid in such a way?

As with this it should be clear that there was a serious problem even before Wolfowitz intervened pushing promotions and salary increases, something that the Executive Board also valiantly recognized, it is obvious that the institutional integrity teams, and all other, have some solid homework to do before they can re-launch the good governance and anti corruption initiative the world needs so much, and that unfortunately seems to have hit an iceberg, while still in port. I am certain that they will succeed.

If it was an entrapment that is almost irrelevant.

Sir, there are now some arguing that Mr Wolfowitz fell into an entrapment created by the World Bank's Ethics Committee and let me make it clear that whether this is true or not, it has nothing little to do with the real issue. Mr Wolfowitz, as the President of the World Bank should be able to know that just because an ethic committee says something might be ethical, that does not necessarily make it so. He should know that having the poverty fighting World Bank seconding someone at a foreseeable cost of US$ 2.700.000 (180.000 plus 50 % benefits times ten years) just to manage his conflict of interest is plainly wrong no matter who might say it is right.

The overwhelmingly good staff, management, board members and presidents, present or past of the World Bank, as well as a world that needs a respected multilateral institution where global challenges can be discussed, they all deserve that this issue should exclusively be about right or wrong and not just a banal pro or against Wolfowitz political row.

The World Bank, though in a hole, needs to dig deeper

Sir, as a former Executive Director of the World Bank (2002-2004) it is with much sadness that I have followed the Wolfowitz affair. It is clear that he should not have played a role in deciding the terms on which his girlfriend was seconded to the US state department” and that he should leave the Bank but, having said that, we need also to question the general idea of the World Bank seconding anyone, even on reasonable and non interfered terms, just to solve a conflict of interest… permitting someone to have the cake and eat it too.

In contrast I remember while an Executive Director how we spent millions of dollars of the Board’s time just in order to debate a “measly” forty thousand dollar a year increase for the then World Bank president James Wolfensohn, so that he would be able to earn as much as his counterpart in the IMF.

Now, after so much procrastination, by all parties, the only real solution for the World Bank, with or without Wolfowitz, lies in appointing a committee of true outsiders to dig deep and review all the World Bank’s current work related policies. The World Bank, when compared to other similar institutions, is very clean but of course, after 64 years of accumulating problem solving compromises, it should be time for a good scrubbing.

The world needs the World Bank to come out of all this smelling like roses and frankly its good staff deserves it.

Divide and conquer?

Sir, your article “Embattled Wolfowitz seeks more cash”, March 5, personalizes too much the issue, since in reality it is an embattled world that needs solutions. At this moment we can only hope that the donor countries will live up to their commitments and replenish the International Development Association (IDA) so as to allow the World Bank to do whatever it can to keep the heads of as many poor as possible out of the water. But, having said that, the fact is that there is also a world of needs for a World Bank (of knowledge and ideas) to act on behalf of the world at large, and this does usually create the conflicts that typically break the weakest links, namely the poor. For instance now when if we heed what the scientists tell us about the climate change we seem to need more than ever an institution that can, as neutral as possible, analyze and tell us in what green solutions the world should invest its scarce resources, this could indeed step on many donor toes. Imagine if for instance the World Bank came up with an analysis that said that hybrid cars, wind energy, and biofuels were either wasteful or harmful solutions, some would indeed be upset, but should the poor in Africa pay for that?

Could this signify that it is time to split up the World Bank into a global World Bank and an IDA World Bank? To do so would at least introduce some more clarity in the institution, which is sorely needed. When you mention that some board members challenged a “frustratingly vague” budget proposal introduced by Wolfowitz, I can only smile since this has obviously nothing to do with him. You put the ten best renowned corporate leaders of the world to budget among the thousands of operations, loans, grants, research projects, seminars and what-have you, and that evolve around the more than 200 development topics, where no one knows or even asks what are the ten things that work the best (to scale them up) or the ten worst (to shut them down), and I bet my last shirt they would also be equally vague. Vague is the nature of the beast, and tame it we must.