Ill-Timed Arrogance

It is also true that both the statements do not carry any message that has not been conveyed by the Bank in the recent past. On corruption, Mr Wolfensohn had outlined the Banks strategy at its recently concluded annual meeting in Washington. And right from his first day in office, he has tried to establish a new relationship of trust and co-operation with the NGOs. Already, he has met NGOs in as many as 41 member-countries of the Bank.

But what is of significance is his uninhibited propensity to wax eloquent on the issue of corruption and the Banks role vis-a-vis the NGOs. It was clear that both the issues were very dear to the president and that he would have liked the Banks message to be conveyed loud and clear. Thus, questions asked on these issues at the news conference on Monday seemed only to be an opportunity, which the World Bank president grabbed with both hands.

 

There is little doubt that the corruption issue will be viewed with some suspicion in most developing countries including India. There will be many uncomfortable questions. Why has the issue been raised now? Wasnt the World Bank aware of the proliferating corruption in the award of many projects assisted by it? And, if there is corruption, who is responsible for it? Can the World Bank shrug off its responsibility and put the entire blame on the country where the project is to be located?

A key issue, which may get overlooked in this exercise, is whether the procedures framed by the World Bank themselves are foolproof. And foolproof, tight and transparent procedures alone should be enough to ensure that the World Bank roots out corruption in all projects funded by it. Prevention, after all, is better than cure. If the procedures can check corruption and if a certain member-country refuses to comply with them, surely the World Bank can stop funding the project concerned. But the manner in which the Mr Wolfensohn is now threatening to pull out of tainted projects does betray an arrogance that the World Bank can certainly do without at this stage.

A more disturbing question is what happens to those companies which indulge in corruption to win contracts for implementing World Bank-aided projects. Shouldnt the World Bank also penalise them? Or do these companies, many of which are famed multinational giants of the developed world, fall outside the jurisdiction of the World Bank?

It seems that Mr Wolfensohn is conscious of such implications. Corruption is the biggest barrier to effective implementation of projects