Thanks, Mark.
A not unintelligent mainstream analysis of the problems of the World Bank, I
reckon. But the institutional relations to which Wade refers, not to mention
comrade Wolfensohn's salutary 'destroy-from-within' tactics, point to a
problem far deeper and scarier than anywhere Wade lets himself go. A bank
must behave as a bank (not a high standard of behaviour, as Brecht reminded
us), and one side of its constituency (investors) are always going to be more
powerful than the other (borrowers). The theoretical commonality of interests
that underpins the very notion of the World Bank is as nothing compared to
real interests in any real moment. So Wade's compelling empirical explanation
as to why capital markets are demonstrably not a source of hope for world
development comes close, I submit, to being an institutionalist explanation
for the WB's troubles. 'Trouble is, to say that is to say the World Bank,
like any bank under capitalism, is a fundamentally flawed notion. Which kinda
leads to the next question ... and 4 billion people need an answer to that one
pretty damned quickly.
Cheers,
Rob.
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
