Search

The six most senior remaining managers of the World Bank have assumed day-to-day control of the bank to fill the void created by the imminent departure of president Paul Wolfowitz. [...]

WASHINGTON -- One of Paul Wolfowitz's two deputies yesterday urged the World Bank president to resign as the civil war inside the institution reached top management. Graeme Wheeler, managing director, [...]

WASHINGTON -- The World Bank will today embark on a year-long, Dollars 20bn-plus fundraising drive that will test donor countries' willingness to live up to promises made following the Gleneagles [...]

JAKARTA -- The World Bank said yester-day it would as much as double its base lending programme to Indonesia for the next four years while at the same time warning [...]

KUALA LUMPUR, Fri. - Doctors and consumers generally welcomed the move to allow local manufacturers to produce drugs for life-threatening diseases. Malaysian Medical Association president Datuk Dr P. Krishnan said [...]

Since James Wolfensohn took over as World Bank president in 1995 he has sought to give it a new focus in response to changes in developing countries and in the development aid sector. The Bank was suffering from a lack of expertise in important sectors and weak demand for its loans. Over one third of the Bank's projects produced unsatisfactory outcomes. Wolfensohn has introduced a 'strategic compact' aimed at cutting bureaucracy, putting more money into field, improving knowledge sharing within the Bank and developing new services and products. As yet, the success of the plan is unclear.

Ex-World Bank adviser, Joseph Stiglitz, claims that the bank applies the same four steps when giving assistance to poor nations. Details are given.

Staff morale at the World Bank is very low and the quality of leadership has been criticised. There are also fears that the bank is getting involved in areas which it should not.

Having an appropriate institutional framework is a key element in dealing with the current pressures on the world economy. This is why reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank is being given close attention. Developments in the world economy have brought these two institutions much closer together, thus creating potential for clashes. The Asian crisis has made both the World Bank and the IMF more vulnerable, and they have not really responded satisfactorily to criticism.

British politicians have frequently put forward plans for international monetary reform, but they have rarely received much attention. This will also be the case as UK Prime Minister Tony Blair makes recommendations for reforming the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The UK's influence in international monetary matters comes from the perceived strengths of the country's economic policy, not from plans presented by its politicians. In any case, it is not at all certain whether the World Bank and the IMF actually need reform.

The global financial institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, have moved a long way in their willingness to help relieve debt since the effort to reduce the debt burden of the world's poorest countries was first seriously addressed in 1995. The Highly Indebted Poor Countries initiative (HIPC) created in 1996 is a major advance, even though its terms are extremely tough. Countries have to follow an agreed pattern of economic reforms for at least three years, followed by a further three years of austerity in order to qualify for debt forgiveness.

On Apr 17 1998, World Bank head James Wolfensohn will tell development and finance ministers that the $250 reorganization of the bank, or 'strategic compact', is already paying off one year after it was launched. However, the news is not all good - there has been an improvement in both the quantity and quality of the bank's lending, but staff morale remains low. In FY98, the bank expects to deliver more than 265 projects, involving loans of $21-24 billion. However, staff continue to feel insecure, especially as the redundancy programme has not yet been completed.

The financial crisis in Asia has highlighted differences between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank which have existed for a long time but which most people have chosen to overlook. It is now time to consider combining the financial sector expertise of these institutions, possibly also with the Bank for International Settlements. Overall control should rest with the IMF, given that sound financial systems are a key element in effective macroeconomic policy. There is a strong argument for shifting some of the IMF's long-term structural adjustment lending to the World Bank.

The World Bank president, James Wolfensohn, has responded to criticism on progress toward debt relief for poorer countries. The United Kingdom chancellor, Gordon Brown, argues that progress should be more rapid. Wolfensohn argues that Brown should make a contribution to the World Bank if he wishes to speed progress. Wolfensohn also argues that staff morale at the World Bank is likely to improve, in response to a statement from the bank's staff association that morale has been hit by restructuring.

There is still controversy surrounding plans to undertake extensive reorganisation at the World Bank. These plans aim to ensure that the World Bank, the most significant development institution in the world, can operate effectively in the 21st century. The US, the most powerful shareholder, has serious reservations about the reorganisation plans, while the UK and France have yet to reach a firm decision. The bank has a very good record, but needs to reorganise in order to adjust to changing world conditions.

The World Bank is concerned about levels of bureaucracy, deteriorating finances and ineffective reorganizations and the president, James Wolfensohn, aims to restructure the institution. His goals include a bigger investment in training and more resources for front-line activities. He has had to modify his proposals due to opposition from member countries over the costs involved in this plan. Some officials are concerned that the proposals could leave the World Bank more exposed to US attacks.