I object to Sholto Cross' attempting to portray the corruption claims
against the Bank as being a form of intellectual leprosy, afflicting
blind believers in Gramscian hegemonic forces. Any serious observer of
development processes must recognise the influence of dominant
discourses within organisational hierarchies, and the profound influence
that having to earn a living has on all of us.
All that aside, the main charge that the Bank faces is that of trying
to make the GDG seem independent when it is in fact not. This type of
crisis of accountability is not unique for the Bank. Its self
inspection committee faced similar problems when it attempted to
portray itself as an independent judicial structure when it was in fact
simply yet another World Bank committee, not subject to external
influence. The academic debate at the time raised the idea that the
bank set up this inspection committee, to review its failures in terms
of strustural adjustment, in order to prevent other international
organisations gaining the remitt to do so.
One wonders weither such a "monopoly of voice" is the strategy behind
the GDG, since the Bank has come under such heavy criticism in the last
two decades, and since the internet is well known as a powerful forum
for such critiques. Far from being intellectual leprosy, these charges
are backed up by a long critical intellectual tradition of questioning
the Bank's activities which have thankfully led to a softening of its
position and a lessening of the stature of "Pure" neoclassical
approaches to economic development.
do not let power lead to deafness,
Daniel Taghioff
(also a member of the "development community" whatever that may be)
------------
***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at:
<http://www.globalknowledge.org>
