Can the World Bank change?

POST: The Post-Wolfowitz World Bank

Keeping with the same theme, James Pethokoukis from U.S. News & World Report mentions Tom in a post from yesterday:

Perhaps new leadership and a new mission are needed. Political scientist and geostrategist Thomas Barnett, author of Blueprint for Action, says that perhaps the World Bank could focus instead on post-conflict and post-disaster recovery.

Blogs of War links that post, but says he's not holding his breath.

Comments

[nykrindc]

That would be a tough sell, since given the current geopolitical climate, any such proposal would be seen as an attempt by the US to use the bank to further its own foreign policy in Iraq and as preparation for its confrontation with Iran. It may be an easier sell once a new president comes into power here in the US, but at this time it probably won't fly. Pity.

[Tom Barnett]

Agree.

WB will change in response to US, but not at our direction.

[Per Kurowski]

Let us keep the eyes on the ball!

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 at it, 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 and that no matter Wolfowitz and some others, in relative terms, still stands out as a shining example of relative 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.

May I humbly suggest we keep our eyes on the ball!