From our friends at the Bretton Woods Project:
[BWP Alert] Volcker panel releases report on Bank anti-graft
unit
The panel headed by former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Paul
Volcker, created to review the work of the World Bank's anti-corruption
unit, the Department of Institutional Integrity (or 'INT' - headed by
Wolfowitz acolyte Suzanne Rich Folsom), released its 40-page report
today:
http://www.independentpanelreview.com/report.shtml
The official report comes a few days after US NGO Government
Accountability Project (GAP) released a scathing parallel examination of
INT, finding some very dodgy practices indeed:
http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=1145
For ongoing discussion of the reports, their fallout and all the gossip
see the blog on IFIwatchnet:http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.italic.gif
insert italic tags
http://ifiwatchnet.org/?q=en/featured_blog/369
And from our friends at BIC:
WSJ: World Bank Wasted Money and Lives in Buying Wrong Medicine
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118955959601924586.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Cost of Too Many Consultants (ADB and World Bank)
http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=59180
The News International
By Imtiaz Gul
Pakistan is currently witnessing a galore of consultants -- both from the private sector as well as from within the government. They are able to turn around even worst situations and hence a source of strength and new vision for respective departments, so runs the argument in favour of consultants being hired at hefty emoluments.
The Pakistan Image Project had attracted about seven highly-paid consultants. All but Mahreen Khan have said adieu to the project, stating various reasons for their departure. Departmental acrimony, lack of cooperation as well as of authority were some of the factors that forced these consultants out. Most of them were young and talented but probably had landed in the wrong place.
Several other people, however, turned to be luckier, and seem to have successfully taken the October 2005 earthquake tragedy by the horn and turned it into an opportunity.
As many as 15 consultants for instance have made their way into the "Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA)" against hefty salaries. Their prime objective is to regulate the reconstruction and rehabilitation activities in the earthquake-affected areas and to ensure financial transparency.
ERRA insiders say the employment of heavily-paid consultants, most of them from within the same bureaucracy that is accused of obstructionism and inaction, have also fuelled resentment and caused bad blood among scores of other government functionaries, particularly those on deputation; they are drawing just the government salary and some deputation allowance, whereas the consultants, draw amounts at least times of their salaries -- essentially for the same kind of jobs.
This gross disparity in the salary structure also results in bickering and indifference among the people involved in the same project. According to insiders, consultants' salaries, all being drawn from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans, range between 6000 to 10,000 dollars in addition to usual perks and privileges. They say this has prompted a number of bureaucrats and technocrats already in the government service to find out as to whether they could also benefit from the system in the same way.
It is surprising how ERRA, PERRA (Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority) and SERRA (State Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority) can open its gates to outsiders and insiders, mostly well-connected, people and accommodate them against lucrative salaries.
One would hardly contest the premise that jobs must carry incentives to make officials work. But equally disturbing is the disparity which comes across as a blatant discrimination of the majority of the staff, including even the lower, clerical and administrative staff, who prepare the mouth-watering salary and daily allowance bills and invoices of their officers, but themselves hardly get paid decent salaries or allowances.
The way the lower staff and regular employees are hounded by the seniors and the consultants without any extra benefits also causes fissures within the system. But it also underscores the dichotomy in a system on the one hand employs some people with unusually high salaries (for the local conditions) and on the other hand heavily relies on a big disicentivised lower-rung bureaucracy. That is why the Pakistan Image Project consultants failed to create a niche for themselves within the system. To what extent can ERRA, PERRA and SERRA consultants entrench themselves and extract cooperation from their colleagues, remains a matter of speculation as of now.
Although the NGO-led work is much better, yet the pace of work under the three organizations remains slow and objectionable, resulting in protests and occasional blockades of even the Karakorom Highway The common complaint is the dithering and delaying that the nitpicking by consultants and officials causes in the course of project implementation and execution of ground works. So, it remains questionable as to whether highly paid consultants do make a difference?
The writer is an Islamabad-based correspondent of a foreign news organisation. Email: vogul1960@-yahoo.com
The News International
By Imtiaz Gul
Pakistan is currently witnessing a galore of consultants -- both from the private sector as well as from within the government. They are able to turn around even worst situations and hence a source of strength and new vision for respective departments, so runs the argument in favour of consultants being hired at hefty emoluments.
The Pakistan Image Project had attracted about seven highly-paid consultants. All but Mahreen Khan have said adieu to the project, stating various reasons for their departure. Departmental acrimony, lack of cooperation as well as of authority were some of the factors that forced these consultants out. Most of them were young and talented but probably had landed in the wrong place.
Several other people, however, turned to be luckier, and seem to have successfully taken the October 2005 earthquake tragedy by the horn and turned it into an opportunity.
As many as 15 consultants for instance have made their way into the "Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA)" against hefty salaries. Their prime objective is to regulate the reconstruction and rehabilitation activities in the earthquake-affected areas and to ensure financial transparency.
ERRA insiders say the employment of heavily-paid consultants, most of them from within the same bureaucracy that is accused of obstructionism and inaction, have also fuelled resentment and caused bad blood among scores of other government functionaries, particularly those on deputation; they are drawing just the government salary and some deputation allowance, whereas the consultants, draw amounts at least times of their salaries -- essentially for the same kind of jobs.
This gross disparity in the salary structure also results in bickering and indifference among the people involved in the same project. According to insiders, consultants' salaries, all being drawn from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans, range between 6000 to 10,000 dollars in addition to usual perks and privileges. They say this has prompted a number of bureaucrats and technocrats already in the government service to find out as to whether they could also benefit from the system in the same way.
It is surprising how ERRA, PERRA (Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority) and SERRA (State Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority) can open its gates to outsiders and insiders, mostly well-connected, people and accommodate them against lucrative salaries.
One would hardly contest the premise that jobs must carry incentives to make officials work. But equally disturbing is the disparity which comes across as a blatant discrimination of the majority of the staff, including even the lower, clerical and administrative staff, who prepare the mouth-watering salary and daily allowance bills and invoices of their officers, but themselves hardly get paid decent salaries or allowances.
The way the lower staff and regular employees are hounded by the seniors and the consultants without any extra benefits also causes fissures within the system. But it also underscores the dichotomy in a system on the one hand employs some people with unusually high salaries (for the local conditions) and on the other hand heavily relies on a big disicentivised lower-rung bureaucracy. That is why the Pakistan Image Project consultants failed to create a niche for themselves within the system. To what extent can ERRA, PERRA and SERRA consultants entrench themselves and extract cooperation from their colleagues, remains a matter of speculation as of now.
Although the NGO-led work is much better, yet the pace of work under the three organizations remains slow and objectionable, resulting in protests and occasional blockades of even the Karakorom Highway The common complaint is the dithering and delaying that the nitpicking by consultants and officials causes in the course of project implementation and execution of ground works. So, it remains questionable as to whether highly paid consultants do make a difference?
The writer is an Islamabad-based correspondent of a foreign news organisation. Email: vogul1960@-yahoo.com
Corporate Power and Influence in the World Bank
http://www.stwr.net/content/view/2176/37/
Corporate influence11th September 07 - Shalmali Guttal, Focus on the
Global South
Every year, the World Bank (Bank) channels US$ 18-20 billion to developing
countries in the form of loans and grants with the ostensible aim of
reducing poverty and promoting economic growth. The Bank always acts in
tandem with its sibling agency, the International Monetary Fund (Fund),
even in countries that no longer borrow from the Fund. Not all Bank
financing and support goes to governments. A significant amount goes
directly to the private sector, especially large corporations, in the form
of loans, technical assistance and mitigation of investment risks.
Backing the Rich
In existence for over 60 years, the Bank has expanded from a single
institution-the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD)--to five institutions, each dealing with a particular area of
operations. [1] These include financing and other supports for relief and
rehabilitation, physical and institutional infrastructure in sectors such
as energy, transportation, extractive industry and telecommunications,
restructuring of key sectors such as health, education, water and
agriculture to make them private sector and market friendly, private
sector development, and mitigating investment-associated risks for private
companies. Despite recent scandals, the Bank is a powerful institution. In
most of its client countries, it is virtually the only doorway to access
international trade, development finance and private investment capital.
It derives its power and policy agendas from its wealthiest shareholders
--governments that comprise the G-7 [2], who routinely use the Bank to
secure lucrative trade and investment deals in developing countries for
their respective transnational corporations (TNCs).
Corporate influence is manifested in and through the Bank in several ways.
Most obvious are the supports extended to private corporations through
three of its specialised institutions: the International Finance
Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
The IFC is the private sector arm of the Bank and the world's largest
multilateral source of equity and loan financing for private enterprises
in developing countries. It claims to support economic development,
employment and poverty reduction by promoting open, competitive and
efficient markets and direct support for private companies in developing
countries. The IFC has developed a range of financial tools and services
to enable private companies to manage investment risks and broaden their
access to capital and developing country markets. The Bank and IFC have
also established the "Rapid Response knowledge initiative," which
specializes in policy advice on business environment reforms and
privatization policy in developing countries. The initiative maintains a
cyber-service called "Private sector blog-a market approach to development
thinking" to promote its pro-market, pro-corporate ideology. [3].
A closer look at IFC operations show that much of its support actually
goes to large, well-funded corporations and not to small-scale, local
entrepreneurs. Through the IFC, corporations get access to large,
government-sponsored infrastructure and service delivery projects and
investment opportunities that are relatively risk free. Local communities,
on the other hand, have little voice and no benefits in these investments
as social and environmental safeguards are increasingly overridden by
corporate demands for profits.
MIGA provides some of the most important services to private corporations
by mitigating the political risks of private investment in high risk, low
income and conflict-affected countries. MIGA's forte is political or
sovereign risk, which includes governmental actions that jeopardize
corporate revenues. MIGA risk guarantees protect corporate investors
against loss resulting from government expropriation of assets and breach
of contract, war and civil disturbance including insurrection, coups
d'état, revolution, sabotage, and terrorism. MIGA prides itself as a
leader in the political risk insurance industry and collaborates with
private and public insurers to "encourage private sector insurers into
transactions they would not have otherwise undertaken."[4] MIGA's
beneficiaries are generally TNCs in sectors such as water, energy, oil and
gas, telecommunications, automobiles, agribusiness and luxury hospitality.
MIGA also provides "dispute mediation" services and in this, it is
complemented by ICSID, which serves as a private, almost secret court to
settle disputes between states and private investors. ICSID has been in
the public spotlight recently because of a US$ 50 million lawsuit brought
against the Bolivian Government by Bechtel and Aguas Del Tunari for
cancellation of a water privatisation contract in the Bolivian town of
Cochabamba. A massive, coordinated international campaign against Bechtel
forced it to accept 30 cents as its settlement. But the case directed the
world's attention to the Bank's system of closed door trade courts, the
majority of which involve protecting the rights of corporate investors in
crucial public interest sectors such as water, electricity,
telecommunications, oil, natural gas and mining.
Corporate Support Disguised as “Development”
Less blatant, though more insidious and pervasive, are the pro-corporate
policy prescriptions that accompany Bank financing for so called
"development" projects and programmes through the IBRD and International
Development Association (IDA). Especially notorious are Bank-Fund designed
economic reform packages which seek to establish small, efficient and
corporate friendly governments to rule over corporate friendly capitalist
economies. Once called Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) and then
renamed "poverty reduction strategies," these reform packages are designed
to open up the markets and economies of borrowing countries to foreign
investors through trade and investment liberalisation, privatisation of
public utilities, state marketing boards and state enterprises, and
financial deregulation. Reforms also demand that cross subsidies for the
poor, and protections for workers and domestic producers and enterprises
be eliminated, and publicly financed social programmes--including those in
health, education, water and sanitation-be drastically cut back.
Although the ostensible goal of the Bank's "development finance" is to
alleviate poverty, increase employment and raise living standards by
stimulating rapid economic growth, Bank projects and programmes deliver
far greater benefits to private corporations, contractors and consulting
firms than to the poor. The Bank's push for trade liberalisation coupled
with the removal of government supports for domestic producers and
enterprises provides foreign corporations unrestricted access to
developing country markets in crucial sectors such as agriculture,
services and industry. By insisting that borrowing countries shrink labour
and environmental regulations and establish corporate friendly taxation
and property regimes, the Bank virtually assures private investors a free
ride at the cost of local communities, workers and environments.
The Bank's almost religious belief in commercialisation and privatisation
has served corporations extremely well. Regardless of the problem or
sector (water, electricity, agricultural marketing, health, education,
etc.) the Bank demands that the government step back and the market step
in. Privatisation includes a range of measures: from unbundling (or
breaking up) operations in a public enterprise and outsourcing (or
contracting out) the unbundled operations to eventual sale of the public
enterprise either whole or in part. Included in the package are contracts
for privately provided, high-end "technical assistance" and procurement of
ancillary goods and services. Although the Bank insists that procurement
and contracting are the responsibilities of the implementing agency [5]
(usually a government department), privatised assets, and construction,
consultancy and procurement contracts generally go to large corporations,
contractors and consulting firms that are well versed with Bank rules for
bidding and procurement.
The 'symbiosis' between the Bank and corporations is well demonstrated in
the biotechnology and agrochemical industries. The Bank's agriculture
policies have been practically written by corporations such as Monsanto,
Aventis, Novartis and Dow. Even as the Bank expanded its rhetoric about
environmental sustainability in the 1990s, its projects advocated
increasing farmers' access to agrochemicals and genetically modified
seeds. During this time, the Bank also entered into business partnerships
with nearly all leading pesticide and biotechnology companies through a
staff exchange programme that involved 189 corporations, governments,
universities and international agencies. A marketing analyst from Aventis
(now Bayer CropScience) spent nearly four years in the IBRD to develop
IBRD's position on agricultural biotechnology and strategies to leverage
financing through the IFC. Novartis' (now Syngenta) head of public affairs
spent a year working on outreach strategies for the Bank's rural
development unit. Bank officials placed in Novartis and Rhone Poulenc Agro
(now part of Bayer) in the late 1990s assisted them with biotechnology
regulatory issues and rural development partnerships. The Bank thus
adjusted its agricultural strategies to satisfy leading biotechnology and
agrochemical corporations which in turn gained access to public policy
making in developing countries via Bank sponsorship.[6].
Pro-corporate thinking is deeply embedded in the Bank. Many of the Bank's
presidents and senior staff come from the corporate sector and "market
solutions" feature prominently in the Bank's strategies for addressing
virtually any challenge whether deforestation, global warming or food and
water scarcity. The Bank's development vision is a capitalist one in which
the role of government is to create an "enabling environment" for the
private (corporate) sector to flourish and for the market to sort out
crucial issues of access and distribution. In large hydro-power projects
for example, the Bank routinely assists host governments and private
contractors in project preparation and mobilising project finance: it
hires private consulting firms to work alongside government departments to
design the project and implementing arrangements, mobilises project
financing (through the IFC) and underwrites the loans (through MIGA or
other partnering risk guarantors). The costs of environmental and social
mitigation are left to government and society, and the terms of project
financing and guarantees generally favour private companies over the
larger public interest.
The Bank is proud of its support for corporations and private investors,
as expressed on the MIGA website:
"Our presence in a potential investment can literally transform a "no-go"
into a "go." We act as a potent deterrent against government actions that
may adversely affect investments. And even if disputes do arise, our
leverage with host governments frequently enables us to resolve
differences to the mutual satisfaction of all parties."[7].
For several decades now, the Bank has used development and poverty
reduction as smokescreens to further corporate interests. It has used its
position as preferred creditor and aid coordinator in developing countries
to create opportunities for private corporations, contractors and
consultants to profit from structural needs and crises in developing
countries. Clearly, dismantling corporate power over our public goods,
services and commons will also require dismantling the World Bank.
Shalmali Guttal is a senior associate with Focus on the Global South.
Corporate influence11th September 07 - Shalmali Guttal, Focus on the
Global South
Every year, the World Bank (Bank) channels US$ 18-20 billion to developing
countries in the form of loans and grants with the ostensible aim of
reducing poverty and promoting economic growth. The Bank always acts in
tandem with its sibling agency, the International Monetary Fund (Fund),
even in countries that no longer borrow from the Fund. Not all Bank
financing and support goes to governments. A significant amount goes
directly to the private sector, especially large corporations, in the form
of loans, technical assistance and mitigation of investment risks.
Backing the Rich
In existence for over 60 years, the Bank has expanded from a single
institution-the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD)--to five institutions, each dealing with a particular area of
operations. [1] These include financing and other supports for relief and
rehabilitation, physical and institutional infrastructure in sectors such
as energy, transportation, extractive industry and telecommunications,
restructuring of key sectors such as health, education, water and
agriculture to make them private sector and market friendly, private
sector development, and mitigating investment-associated risks for private
companies. Despite recent scandals, the Bank is a powerful institution. In
most of its client countries, it is virtually the only doorway to access
international trade, development finance and private investment capital.
It derives its power and policy agendas from its wealthiest shareholders
--governments that comprise the G-7 [2], who routinely use the Bank to
secure lucrative trade and investment deals in developing countries for
their respective transnational corporations (TNCs).
Corporate influence is manifested in and through the Bank in several ways.
Most obvious are the supports extended to private corporations through
three of its specialised institutions: the International Finance
Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
The IFC is the private sector arm of the Bank and the world's largest
multilateral source of equity and loan financing for private enterprises
in developing countries. It claims to support economic development,
employment and poverty reduction by promoting open, competitive and
efficient markets and direct support for private companies in developing
countries. The IFC has developed a range of financial tools and services
to enable private companies to manage investment risks and broaden their
access to capital and developing country markets. The Bank and IFC have
also established the "Rapid Response knowledge initiative," which
specializes in policy advice on business environment reforms and
privatization policy in developing countries. The initiative maintains a
cyber-service called "Private sector blog-a market approach to development
thinking" to promote its pro-market, pro-corporate ideology. [3].
A closer look at IFC operations show that much of its support actually
goes to large, well-funded corporations and not to small-scale, local
entrepreneurs. Through the IFC, corporations get access to large,
government-sponsored infrastructure and service delivery projects and
investment opportunities that are relatively risk free. Local communities,
on the other hand, have little voice and no benefits in these investments
as social and environmental safeguards are increasingly overridden by
corporate demands for profits.
MIGA provides some of the most important services to private corporations
by mitigating the political risks of private investment in high risk, low
income and conflict-affected countries. MIGA's forte is political or
sovereign risk, which includes governmental actions that jeopardize
corporate revenues. MIGA risk guarantees protect corporate investors
against loss resulting from government expropriation of assets and breach
of contract, war and civil disturbance including insurrection, coups
d'état, revolution, sabotage, and terrorism. MIGA prides itself as a
leader in the political risk insurance industry and collaborates with
private and public insurers to "encourage private sector insurers into
transactions they would not have otherwise undertaken."[4] MIGA's
beneficiaries are generally TNCs in sectors such as water, energy, oil and
gas, telecommunications, automobiles, agribusiness and luxury hospitality.
MIGA also provides "dispute mediation" services and in this, it is
complemented by ICSID, which serves as a private, almost secret court to
settle disputes between states and private investors. ICSID has been in
the public spotlight recently because of a US$ 50 million lawsuit brought
against the Bolivian Government by Bechtel and Aguas Del Tunari for
cancellation of a water privatisation contract in the Bolivian town of
Cochabamba. A massive, coordinated international campaign against Bechtel
forced it to accept 30 cents as its settlement. But the case directed the
world's attention to the Bank's system of closed door trade courts, the
majority of which involve protecting the rights of corporate investors in
crucial public interest sectors such as water, electricity,
telecommunications, oil, natural gas and mining.
Corporate Support Disguised as “Development”
Less blatant, though more insidious and pervasive, are the pro-corporate
policy prescriptions that accompany Bank financing for so called
"development" projects and programmes through the IBRD and International
Development Association (IDA). Especially notorious are Bank-Fund designed
economic reform packages which seek to establish small, efficient and
corporate friendly governments to rule over corporate friendly capitalist
economies. Once called Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) and then
renamed "poverty reduction strategies," these reform packages are designed
to open up the markets and economies of borrowing countries to foreign
investors through trade and investment liberalisation, privatisation of
public utilities, state marketing boards and state enterprises, and
financial deregulation. Reforms also demand that cross subsidies for the
poor, and protections for workers and domestic producers and enterprises
be eliminated, and publicly financed social programmes--including those in
health, education, water and sanitation-be drastically cut back.
Although the ostensible goal of the Bank's "development finance" is to
alleviate poverty, increase employment and raise living standards by
stimulating rapid economic growth, Bank projects and programmes deliver
far greater benefits to private corporations, contractors and consulting
firms than to the poor. The Bank's push for trade liberalisation coupled
with the removal of government supports for domestic producers and
enterprises provides foreign corporations unrestricted access to
developing country markets in crucial sectors such as agriculture,
services and industry. By insisting that borrowing countries shrink labour
and environmental regulations and establish corporate friendly taxation
and property regimes, the Bank virtually assures private investors a free
ride at the cost of local communities, workers and environments.
The Bank's almost religious belief in commercialisation and privatisation
has served corporations extremely well. Regardless of the problem or
sector (water, electricity, agricultural marketing, health, education,
etc.) the Bank demands that the government step back and the market step
in. Privatisation includes a range of measures: from unbundling (or
breaking up) operations in a public enterprise and outsourcing (or
contracting out) the unbundled operations to eventual sale of the public
enterprise either whole or in part. Included in the package are contracts
for privately provided, high-end "technical assistance" and procurement of
ancillary goods and services. Although the Bank insists that procurement
and contracting are the responsibilities of the implementing agency [5]
(usually a government department), privatised assets, and construction,
consultancy and procurement contracts generally go to large corporations,
contractors and consulting firms that are well versed with Bank rules for
bidding and procurement.
The 'symbiosis' between the Bank and corporations is well demonstrated in
the biotechnology and agrochemical industries. The Bank's agriculture
policies have been practically written by corporations such as Monsanto,
Aventis, Novartis and Dow. Even as the Bank expanded its rhetoric about
environmental sustainability in the 1990s, its projects advocated
increasing farmers' access to agrochemicals and genetically modified
seeds. During this time, the Bank also entered into business partnerships
with nearly all leading pesticide and biotechnology companies through a
staff exchange programme that involved 189 corporations, governments,
universities and international agencies. A marketing analyst from Aventis
(now Bayer CropScience) spent nearly four years in the IBRD to develop
IBRD's position on agricultural biotechnology and strategies to leverage
financing through the IFC. Novartis' (now Syngenta) head of public affairs
spent a year working on outreach strategies for the Bank's rural
development unit. Bank officials placed in Novartis and Rhone Poulenc Agro
(now part of Bayer) in the late 1990s assisted them with biotechnology
regulatory issues and rural development partnerships. The Bank thus
adjusted its agricultural strategies to satisfy leading biotechnology and
agrochemical corporations which in turn gained access to public policy
making in developing countries via Bank sponsorship.[6].
Pro-corporate thinking is deeply embedded in the Bank. Many of the Bank's
presidents and senior staff come from the corporate sector and "market
solutions" feature prominently in the Bank's strategies for addressing
virtually any challenge whether deforestation, global warming or food and
water scarcity. The Bank's development vision is a capitalist one in which
the role of government is to create an "enabling environment" for the
private (corporate) sector to flourish and for the market to sort out
crucial issues of access and distribution. In large hydro-power projects
for example, the Bank routinely assists host governments and private
contractors in project preparation and mobilising project finance: it
hires private consulting firms to work alongside government departments to
design the project and implementing arrangements, mobilises project
financing (through the IFC) and underwrites the loans (through MIGA or
other partnering risk guarantors). The costs of environmental and social
mitigation are left to government and society, and the terms of project
financing and guarantees generally favour private companies over the
larger public interest.
The Bank is proud of its support for corporations and private investors,
as expressed on the MIGA website:
"Our presence in a potential investment can literally transform a "no-go"
into a "go." We act as a potent deterrent against government actions that
may adversely affect investments. And even if disputes do arise, our
leverage with host governments frequently enables us to resolve
differences to the mutual satisfaction of all parties."[7].
For several decades now, the Bank has used development and poverty
reduction as smokescreens to further corporate interests. It has used its
position as preferred creditor and aid coordinator in developing countries
to create opportunities for private corporations, contractors and
consultants to profit from structural needs and crises in developing
countries. Clearly, dismantling corporate power over our public goods,
services and commons will also require dismantling the World Bank.
Shalmali Guttal is a senior associate with Focus on the Global South.
Monday, September 10, 2007
India's Leading Economists and Activists to Discuss Post - World Bank Development Alternatives
At the World Bank Tribunal coming up this 21-24 September at Jawaharlal Nehru University, evening sessions organized by the JNU Teachers Association in collaboration with a number of Delhi Based groups will be held to ask, "What are the alternative models for India's Development"?
While the Tribunal itself will provide a vast breadth and depth of testimony as to the painful consequences of privatization and other World Bank policies, the overall event is planned to be an open space for envisioning new or missed paths of what Amit Bhaduri calls "development with dignity".
The 4 day event will bring together activists and academics from all around the country to work together on new strategies and concrete next steps to redirect the current trajectory in India where capital is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few.
Participate!
www.worldbanktribunal.org
While the Tribunal itself will provide a vast breadth and depth of testimony as to the painful consequences of privatization and other World Bank policies, the overall event is planned to be an open space for envisioning new or missed paths of what Amit Bhaduri calls "development with dignity".
The 4 day event will bring together activists and academics from all around the country to work together on new strategies and concrete next steps to redirect the current trajectory in India where capital is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few.
Participate!
www.worldbanktribunal.org
Friday, September 7, 2007
India was World Bank's largest borrower in 2007
India was by far the largest borrower from two World Bank institutions, accounting for $3.75 billion, or 15 percent of their total lending as the bank group globally committed $34.3 billion in fiscal year 2007.
Q: Where did the money borrowed from the World Bank by Indian Goverment go?
http://www.indiaenews.com/america/20070906/68862.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Bank's programme in India focuses on providing basic services such as access to clean water and education, improving infrastructure for rural areas, and employment. The increase also reflects $700 million in lending to the health sector to India which was carried over from the previous year,according to a World Bank release.
The World Bank Group extended loans, credits, grants, equity investments, and guarantees totalling nearly $6.9 billion to South Asia in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over the previous year.
The increase demonstrated the institution's continuing role in fighting poverty as South Asian countries look for ways to tackle their social challenges even while most of their economies grew aggressively, it said.
Contributing to this increase was: $1.6 billion from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), $4.03 billion from the International Development Association (IDA), $1.18 billion from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and $76 million from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Investment Agency (MIGA).
'South Asia is home to the largest number of people in the world living below one dollar a day, so the agenda for poverty alleviation in the region remains very large,' said Praful Patel, World Bank Vice President for South Asia.
'The lending numbers from the IDA and IBRD in Fiscal Year 2007 are in line with the scaling up strategy we developed for the region three years ago.'
'There's a huge demand for IDA resources in South Asia and there's a huge prospect for making a real impact on the ground to reduce poverty,' said Patel. 'These types of programmes would not be possible without IDA funding. IDA leverages government programmes, enabling them to innovate and scale up.'
Many of the Bank's projects in the last fiscal year supported existing programmes that are delivering results. Looking ahead, the Bank will focus on cross-cutting reforms such as governance and fiscal management, and continue addressing deficiencies in the region's investment climate, such as weak infrastructure, red tape, and corruption.
It will also deepen its engagement in states where poverty is increasingly concentrated, such as Orissa and Bihar in India and Sindh in Pakistan.
IFC's investment commitments in the South Asia region reached $1.07 billion for 30 projects in FY07, and it mobilised an additional $102 million through syndications.
Three quarters of the $2.6 billion of the disbursed and outstanding regional portfolio is in India, with Bangladesh at $147 million, the second largest.
Private sector projects worth $3 billion were supported as a result of IFC's assistance to the Indian corporate sector. IFC doubled its committed portfolio in India in the infrastructure sector, to $600 million. Investments ranged from natural gas to wind power and from port services to a fund for developing public-private projects in infrastructure sector.
'The South Asia Region has been acknowledged as a leader in impact Evaluations - to better understand what works and what doesn't work, so governments and the Bank can decide what should be scaled up and what should be scaled down,' said Shanta Devarajan, World Bank Chief Economist for South Asia.
This year also saw earlier Bank analytical work having policy impact. Estimates of teacher absenteeism in India, for example, have contributed to a shift in the focus of India's major primary education programme towards improved education quality, the Bank said.
In response to the Bank's Doing Business report, the Indian government set up a Committee of Secretaries in November 2006. This Committee has directed that action is taken to reduce the time and cost of doing business in the country.
Q: Where did the money borrowed from the World Bank by Indian Goverment go?
http://www.indiaenews.com/america/20070906/68862.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Bank's programme in India focuses on providing basic services such as access to clean water and education, improving infrastructure for rural areas, and employment. The increase also reflects $700 million in lending to the health sector to India which was carried over from the previous year,according to a World Bank release.
The World Bank Group extended loans, credits, grants, equity investments, and guarantees totalling nearly $6.9 billion to South Asia in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over the previous year.
The increase demonstrated the institution's continuing role in fighting poverty as South Asian countries look for ways to tackle their social challenges even while most of their economies grew aggressively, it said.
Contributing to this increase was: $1.6 billion from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), $4.03 billion from the International Development Association (IDA), $1.18 billion from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and $76 million from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Investment Agency (MIGA).
'South Asia is home to the largest number of people in the world living below one dollar a day, so the agenda for poverty alleviation in the region remains very large,' said Praful Patel, World Bank Vice President for South Asia.
'The lending numbers from the IDA and IBRD in Fiscal Year 2007 are in line with the scaling up strategy we developed for the region three years ago.'
'There's a huge demand for IDA resources in South Asia and there's a huge prospect for making a real impact on the ground to reduce poverty,' said Patel. 'These types of programmes would not be possible without IDA funding. IDA leverages government programmes, enabling them to innovate and scale up.'
Many of the Bank's projects in the last fiscal year supported existing programmes that are delivering results. Looking ahead, the Bank will focus on cross-cutting reforms such as governance and fiscal management, and continue addressing deficiencies in the region's investment climate, such as weak infrastructure, red tape, and corruption.
It will also deepen its engagement in states where poverty is increasingly concentrated, such as Orissa and Bihar in India and Sindh in Pakistan.
IFC's investment commitments in the South Asia region reached $1.07 billion for 30 projects in FY07, and it mobilised an additional $102 million through syndications.
Three quarters of the $2.6 billion of the disbursed and outstanding regional portfolio is in India, with Bangladesh at $147 million, the second largest.
Private sector projects worth $3 billion were supported as a result of IFC's assistance to the Indian corporate sector. IFC doubled its committed portfolio in India in the infrastructure sector, to $600 million. Investments ranged from natural gas to wind power and from port services to a fund for developing public-private projects in infrastructure sector.
'The South Asia Region has been acknowledged as a leader in impact Evaluations - to better understand what works and what doesn't work, so governments and the Bank can decide what should be scaled up and what should be scaled down,' said Shanta Devarajan, World Bank Chief Economist for South Asia.
This year also saw earlier Bank analytical work having policy impact. Estimates of teacher absenteeism in India, for example, have contributed to a shift in the focus of India's major primary education programme towards improved education quality, the Bank said.
In response to the Bank's Doing Business report, the Indian government set up a Committee of Secretaries in November 2006. This Committee has directed that action is taken to reduce the time and cost of doing business in the country.
World Bank Hides Incriminating Corruption Report
A 16 page report clearly links the World Bank to a corruption scandal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Bank Hides Incriminating Corruption Report
Months after its president was forced out for getting his girlfriend promotions and hefty pay raises, officials at the scandal-plagued World Bank are working to kill a scathing report on the rampant fraud in a major bank-supported health care project in India.
After a thorough investigation, the World Bank’s Department of Institutional Integrity found that an Indian pharmaceutical program called Reproductive and Child Health Project has for years been rife with corruption that has led to the loss of billions of dollars.
A 16-page report reveals that the systematic fraud and corruption includes bribery of government officials and procurement support agencies, falsification of performance certificates and coercion of companies.
This includes costly but sub-standard drugs that exceeded World Bank budgets as well as other equipment that didn’t meet international standards.
Investigators say that multiple witnesses admitted bribing government officials and ministers in order to secure the bank-funded contracts and that there is plenty of evidence to merit sanctions against specific individuals and companies. This risks the future of similar programs intended to help the poor.
In fact, the 185-nation World Bank strives to reduce poverty worldwide by assisting developing countries but instead it has been infested with corrupt officials who have failed miserably to complete the institution’s mission.
When President George W. Bush appointed Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank president in 2006, both men vowed to clean house and fervently pursue anti-corruption policies. Wolfowitz had been a high-ranking official in three different Republican administrations and was the nation’s Deputy Defense Secretary before taking the World Bank post.
But after a rather short tenure Wolfowitz resigned because he was exposed for abusing his authority to get his girlfriend promotions and huge pay increases at the institution. Wolfowitz admitted that he personally directed the World Bank’s head of human resources to offer his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a pay increase that drew attention because it was more than double allowed under staff rules.
Read the 16 page report :
http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/2007/09/world_bank_hides_incriminating.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Bank Hides Incriminating Corruption Report
Months after its president was forced out for getting his girlfriend promotions and hefty pay raises, officials at the scandal-plagued World Bank are working to kill a scathing report on the rampant fraud in a major bank-supported health care project in India.
After a thorough investigation, the World Bank’s Department of Institutional Integrity found that an Indian pharmaceutical program called Reproductive and Child Health Project has for years been rife with corruption that has led to the loss of billions of dollars.
A 16-page report reveals that the systematic fraud and corruption includes bribery of government officials and procurement support agencies, falsification of performance certificates and coercion of companies.
This includes costly but sub-standard drugs that exceeded World Bank budgets as well as other equipment that didn’t meet international standards.
Investigators say that multiple witnesses admitted bribing government officials and ministers in order to secure the bank-funded contracts and that there is plenty of evidence to merit sanctions against specific individuals and companies. This risks the future of similar programs intended to help the poor.
In fact, the 185-nation World Bank strives to reduce poverty worldwide by assisting developing countries but instead it has been infested with corrupt officials who have failed miserably to complete the institution’s mission.
When President George W. Bush appointed Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank president in 2006, both men vowed to clean house and fervently pursue anti-corruption policies. Wolfowitz had been a high-ranking official in three different Republican administrations and was the nation’s Deputy Defense Secretary before taking the World Bank post.
But after a rather short tenure Wolfowitz resigned because he was exposed for abusing his authority to get his girlfriend promotions and huge pay increases at the institution. Wolfowitz admitted that he personally directed the World Bank’s head of human resources to offer his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a pay increase that drew attention because it was more than double allowed under staff rules.
Read the 16 page report :
http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/2007/09/world_bank_hides_incriminating.html
Thursday, September 6, 2007
LATEST WORLD BANK BIOSAFETY PROPOSAL HEAVILY CRITICISED.
LATEST WORLD BANK BIOSAFETY PROPOSAL FOR WEST AFRICA HEAVILY CRITICISED.
http://www.grain.org/m/?id=142
The World Bank has revised and resubmitted its new version of the West African biosafety project to the United Nation's Global Environment Facility after deep concerns were raised by civil society groups and governments with the initial proposal.
In response, COPAGEN, the Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage which is based across West Africa in Burkina Faso, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo, has reacted angrily to this proposal. The proposal appears to have little support from the grassroots and has blatantly made it difficult for most to participate; participation has been selective and the main language has been English, despite nearly all countries involved having French as their official language. The new proposal is also only available as an enormous file, making it difficult for many people in West Africa to access.
The German government council member of GEF (Global Environment Facility) has also heavily criticised this latest proposal.
For more information on this and links to documents visit http://www.grain.org/m/?id=142
http://www.grain.org/m/?id=142
The World Bank has revised and resubmitted its new version of the West African biosafety project to the United Nation's Global Environment Facility after deep concerns were raised by civil society groups and governments with the initial proposal.
In response, COPAGEN, the Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage which is based across West Africa in Burkina Faso, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo, has reacted angrily to this proposal. The proposal appears to have little support from the grassroots and has blatantly made it difficult for most to participate; participation has been selective and the main language has been English, despite nearly all countries involved having French as their official language. The new proposal is also only available as an enormous file, making it difficult for many people in West Africa to access.
The German government council member of GEF (Global Environment Facility) has also heavily criticised this latest proposal.
For more information on this and links to documents visit http://www.grain.org/m/?id=142
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)