Discussion Piece II: The World Bank
I may get off on a rant here, but try and stick with me. It appears that the World Bank members have agreed to significantly increase the funds available to struggling economies. Before we get too excited, the Bank committed to increasing the funds by 30% last year, but many member countries, most notably Uncle Sam, didn't cough up their share. Nonetheless, the question for debate is this: Does the World Bank model work?

Here is my take (lame and meandering as it may be): Sometimes. If you've ever seen the documentary "Life in Debt," it is clear that some Jamaicans do not have a favorable perception of the WB. The austere measures prescribed by the Bank are often nothing short of political suicide for sitting governments. Moreover, the measures often represent a recipe for collective suffering. Yet, there have been instances, most notably in Eastern Europe, where a country was so committed to growth and recovery, that they were able to endure the tough times. Perhaps, the WB tough times were no worse than the USSR tough times the country had already experienced. Unfortunately, I am not sure how the WB can effectively measure the collective pain threshold of a developing nation.

Nonetheless, I am believer that free markets and an open global economy will benefit us all (well, will benefit most of us). It will not benefit us equally, and there are definitely losers along with winners. I would think that the current nation-building, democracy-spreading, uniting-not-dividing, Bush administration would see the value in bolstering the global economy and pay their dues. But, what do I know. Maybe failing to meet our financial commitments to education (NCLB) and to economic development (WB dues) makes sense. Maybe democracy and economic prosperity is more rapidly proliferated through carpet bombing. What do I know? Now I ask you, "What do you know?"
- posted by Anonymous @ Thursday, February 24, 2005