Talk:World Bank Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Fairytale_browser.png

This article is within the scope of the Organizations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of organizations. We are developing a framework that will sort every category by location, field, ideology, and type. We need a few more people to help coordinate this ambitious project. If you have any technical experience with templates, or just have an interest in the topic, add your name, and check out the talk page to get involved.
World Bank Group is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.


Contents

[edit] Order of Articles/Citations/NPOV

I rearranged order so more information about the organization is actually present, Cricism should generally be at bottom of pages (although since theirs so much its basically in the middle now)

Also, much of the opposition/criticism reads like an essay on why the world bank sucks. Instead it should have more citations of each charge, and have more of a passive voice. (Madrone 07:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

The factual information in the first part of the article is basically correct, as anyone familiar with the World Bank Group can tell and as it can be verified on the World Bank Group's website. I doubt that more citations are needed in that section, and suggest that the flag on the lack of citations should be removed. However, the criticism section includes many opinions and few references, so the flag in that section is justified. Actually, I wonder if the fact that so many unverified opinions are stated in that section is compatible with Wikipedia policy on a neutral point of view and verifiability.--Mschiffler 03:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

The article Grameen Bank is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you want to support the article, you can vote for it there.--Fenice 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UC)

[edit] Acronym IBRD used before definition

The acronym IBRD is used before it is defined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.173.160.96 (talk • contribs) 06:17, September 23, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed. -- Beland 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

[quote]The World Bank Group is a group of five international organizations responsible for providing finance to countries for purposes of development and poverty reduction, and for encouraging and safeguarding international investment.[/quote]

This entry made the World Bank seem like a charity, an institute that exists to serve poor countries. From what I've been learning in school, the World Bank is a bank like any other: they charge "administrative fees" and make a profit.

The criticism section is a good start but not thorough enough. Notice how the first three lines of that section are all praise for the World Bank.

I don't know enough to do it myself, but someone should really rinse the politics out of this article. 72.1.206.21 15:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that there are people who are in favour of globalisation that still criticise the actions taken by the world bank
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Igdrasa (talk • contribs) 07:39, October 13, 2005 (UTC)
The criticism of the World Bank seems pretty thorough despite it's first sentence. What this article could use is some defense of the World Bank, which is almost totally absent. First of all, no country is forced to take the loans that they offer. Secondly, the World Bank is largely a charity. They offer loans at interest rates that poor countries couldn't possibly attain anywhere else. This is capital that could be redirected to more profitable ventures. Those that donate to the World Bank are passing up better investements (hence more money) to help improve the lives of others. To me giving up money for the benefit of others is the definition of charity. Third, if the poor countries really had all the answers as to how to help their economies grow, then they wouldn't need the world bank.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.13.222 (talk • contribs) 16:33, November 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice to replace the bias with some facts. For example, it is simply untrue that the Bank's private sector development work is all about privatization -- it addresses everything from local enterprise development to corporate social responsibility. Similarly it is untrue that the Bank doesn't provide grants -- a substantial proportion of the IDA window is now grants rather than credits (which were already highly concessional. This information is all easily available online; perhaps this page is just attracting those with agendas? The article would also have more credibility if it cited some authoritative works (e.g. The World Bank: Its First Half Century by Davesh Kapur et al.) rather than obviously polemic Caulfield and Rich type books.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.220.41.127 (talk • contribs) 10:30, November 22, 2005 (UTC)
The World Bank is neither a business enterprise nor a charity in the ordinary sense. Charging fees and interest does not make it a profit-making entity that, after all these years, operates in the black and returns money to its investors. On the other hand, while purporting to help various countries, it is of course under pressure to induce net gain for the "powers behind the throne" and has, inadvertently or not, allowed considerable funds to be corruptly diverted. Overall assessment of whether the World Bank is good or bad for the world depends unavoidably on one's political stance and should not be attempted here, although a quick description of major criticisms and apparent accomplishments is appropriate. Accordingly, this article needs major trimming. Myron 10:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I second the inclusion of an equally thorough defense of the bank to assure that this article is unbiased - AS
This article should be flagged for a full revision. If a particular passage implies a bias, that passage should be rewritten--not leveraged by another section written with opposing bias. The article should begin by stating the nature and purpose of the WB, its simple history, and current status (controversial). The opening should NOT be the criticisms section, since this implies that the WB is defined purely by its negative opposition. In fact, no other article I have seen on WP has opened with a criticism section. Let's seek to rewrite the article and, in doing so, restructure the components of the article to more accurately describe the Bank as if we were writing an encyclopedia--not a scripture of opinions. --Brettbergeron 16:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above commentors that this article sucks. The criticism section seems to be a diatribe, with some important factual errors -- e.g. " National debt is common in many African countries, especially those being “helped” by the World Bank. This is due in part to the economic ideals used to work in this extremely impoverished region." This ignores the two important debt relief efforts undertaken by the international community: HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries debt relief) and MDRI (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative, aka "Gleneagles Initiative"), which essentially provided near complete debt relief for many African (and other poor) countries. There are other factual errors that make this section essentially useless. Perhaps some balanced party could provide a major revision? --

Amadeus 12:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Bank vs. World Bank Group

World Bank and World Bank Group is not the same!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.1.112.11 (talk • contribs) 11:18, November 18, 2005 (UTC)

Really, WHY is the article titled WB Group instead of World Bank, since it's obviously about the latter???!!??? I see the previous post about this problem - a year old by now - fell on deaf ears... did nobody notice it or nobody cares??? and this really needs to be changed ASAP... --Boszko2 14:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm down with it. Should I just move it? john k 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to Article

I know the World Bank well and was concerned that the article was unbalanced and incomplete (on February 23, 2005). While there has been some attempt to provide more factual information over time, there were many places where only one side of an argument were presented. I have tried to ensure that in these cases there is a better balance.

One example is the section on "Social and Environmental Concerns" that referred only to the problems with the Bank's Transmigration project in Indonesia in the period 1974 to 1987. There was no reference to the Bank's subsequent adoption of stringent Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies during the 1990s. These policies are fundamental to the working of the World Bank and also of many other international institutions that use them as a point of reference. The article now contains a mention of these Policies, supplemented by reference to a more up to date work than Le Prestre (1989), namely Mallaby (2004).

The World Bank Group is a very important institution that affects the lives of many millions of people worldwide and is at the center of current global debates. It deserves a far richer and more balanced entry than what is in Wikipedia at present (even after my editing). I hope that the entry will develop organically over time to provide a full factual account and to reflect all points of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allectus (talk • contribs) 19:07, February 24, 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to see more defense against the criticism leveled at the World Bank. Kent Wang 19:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not World Bank?

Why isn't this article at World Bank, which is the more common name? It is obviously about the World Bank, and World Bank redirects here.john k 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. I agree with the implied sentiment you express. Clearly, when most folks use the term "World Bank", whether academicians, major media person, or government officials -- they are referring to the entire group of institutions. That is the common vernacular usage of the term. N2e 21:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Since nobody has expressed any opposition to the idea I say it should be done. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to change an article name. Elliotreed 15:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

this article needs to state the goals of the World Bank as envisioned at its conception

[edit] UK withholds World Bank donation

Some quotes ¨The UK had taken the stance as it opposed World Bank efforts to impose damaging policies that force poorer countries to liberalise their markets.¨ [1]

[edit] Sections

Why is the first section named 'Headline text'? - SpLoT / (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Beland 14:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of sections

I don't know anything about the World Bank, but I can't see why the Criticism section comes first. M0rt 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to rename this entry "World Bank (criticism)" or something similar. There is a paucity of substantial fact about the organization's history, successes, failures, etc.--relative to the amount of cited criticism.

[edit] Revision and Restructure

I have closely examined the talk pages of the World Bank Group and associated pages and have found a few primary complaints about the current state of this article:

1. Distinction between the World Bank Group and the World Bank, which is key to understanding the nature and criticisms of the World Bank/World Bank Group.
2. Concern over objectivity
3. Poor structure of the article (criticism first, goals of the bank near last)

I would like to propose the following changes to this (and related articles) to further improve the quality of Wikipedia.

1. Revise World Bank Group to list and, in brief, describe each of the member organizations. The World Bank article should be split to no longer forward and be used to discuss the two institutions (IBRD and IDA) which act as the primary policy arm of the WBG. Criticisms should also be shifted to the World Bank article where they are more relevant.
2. Create World Bank to discuss the policy arm of the World Bank Group. Here, special emphasis should be placed on the policies, impact, and reaction to the Bank's actions. It is the World Bank which the public, government, and academia focus on.
3. Improve the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development article to contain more information and correct logo.
4. Improve the International Development Association article to contain more information and correct logo.
5. Improve the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency article to contain more information and correct logo.
6. Improve the International Finance Corporation article to contain more information and correct logo.
7. Improve the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes article to contain more information and correct logo.

Please let me know what you think about the suggestions and if they will be a viable solution to the current problems faced by this article. If there is support for this, I will form a collaboration to put these (and suggested changes) into effect. --Brettbergeron 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odious debt?

There is a reference and quote to odious debt with specific reference to South Africa. Q: did the World Bank (group or proper) actually lend to South Africa? If this is not clearly established, this reference/quote should be removed.--Gregalton 19:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal Probe

World Bank Launches Internal Probe to Root Out Leakers. The World Bank is on a global crusade to instill “transparency” in governments that receive its poverty aid. But when it comes to its own internal affairs, the agency prefers as little transparency as possible. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250800,00.html Crocoite 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "Criticism" and "Opposition"

The sections on "Criticism" and "Opposition" appear to be about the same thing: criticism of the Bank. They should be merged. Elliotreed 15:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/Talk%7EWorld_Bank_Group_6755.html"