Talk:World Bank Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Bank Group article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Organizations WikiProject This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the importance scale
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

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)

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)
I'm not sure when it happened, but the Criticism section was called Reception, which seems a little weaselly to me. I changed the section title to Criticism, as is the standard on wikipedia for sections detailing criticism of an article's subject. Someone more familiar with the topic really should cite sources for the sundry claims. I'm sure there's lots of support for the claims, but without documentation it comes off as a rant. Also, the official rebuttals should be included. -74.93.229.129 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This criticism can be found in Stiglitz's book:

Although relied upon by poor countries as a contributor of development finance, the World Bank is often criticized, primarily by opponents of corporate "neo-colonial" globalization.[citation needed] These advocates of alter-globalization fault the bank for undermining the national sovereignty of recipient countries through various structural adjustment programs that pursue economic liberalization and de-emphasize the role of the state.[citation needed]

A related critique is that the Bank operates under essentially "neo-liberal" principles. In this perspective, reforms born of "neo-liberal" inspiration are not always suitable for nations experiencing conflicts (ethnic wars, border conflicts, etc.), or that are long-oppressed (dictatorship or colonialism) and do not have stable, democratic political systems.[citation needed]

One general critique is that the Bank is under the marked political influence of certain countries (notably, the United States) that would profit from advancing their interests. In this point of view, the World Bank would favor the installation of foreign enterprises, to the detriment of the development of the local economy and the people living in that country.[citation needed]

Furthermore, it is frequently suggested that the Bank intervenes in order to salvage irresponsible loans from private institutions to governments in developing countries, and thus shifts the risk from the original risk-takers to the public of the rich countries, who ultimately back the Bank.[citation needed] This may be referred to as a problem of moral hazard, if private lenders believe that public lenders will not allow the borrower to fail.
Altough, he claims, that first of all IMF is responsible for these problems. (Joseph E. Stiglitz: Globalization and it's discontents, W. W. Norton & Company, New York-London, 2002 ) Zslevi 14:46, 13 May 2007 (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)
These kinds of problems are rampant in wikiped... nobody cares, or what? details, right? Pssh.. Lame.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.211.138.29 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2007 (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)

[edit] Missing sources in Criticism section

In the Criticism section there are a lot of unsourced assertions (marked with a '[citation needed]' tag).

This hasn't changed since December 2006. Is it time to clean up these unsourced assertions? From Wikipedia:Citing_sources:

If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing {{fact}} after the sentence or removing the claim. Consider the following in deciding which action to take:

  1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
  2. If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Do not be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material.

Guus 02:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to article: Organizational structure

Does anyone have access to information on the total shares? Currently the article reads: "As of November 1, 2006 the United States held 16.4% of total votes, Japan 7.9%, Germany 4.5%, and France and the United Kingdom each held 4.3%." These figures account for slightly more that one-third of the shares. Might one also organize the information: the EU (x%) of which Germany ( ), France ( ), UK ( ), etc.? JMartens 00:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The run down is available here, from the World Bank's website. The section could certainly be improved, I think the difficulty will be in providing an accurate overview without getting swamped by the detail. I like the idea of putting the EU votes together since they often act as a block. Are there other power blocks that are common? Might be good to find some tertiary sources that analyze voting behavior to really develop the section. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Tagged w/ notice re: controversial nature of article (recently perhaps due to Paul Wolfowitz World Bank controversy; relates to neutrality tag on article and comments re: bias above). Such articles which also involve living persons (e.g., Paul Wolfowitz, Shaha Riza), clearly need full citations: see WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. --NYScholar 04:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extractive Industries Review

The current formulation the outcome of the EIR reads"

"The report concluded that fossil fuel and mining projects do not alleviate poverty, and recommended that World Bank involvement with these sectors be phased out by 2008 to be replaced by investment in renewable energy and clean energy."

This is deceiving. Actually, the EIR suggested that the WBG can maintain it's role in the extractive industries if it can adhere to certain conditions:

…the Extractive Industries Review believes that there is still a role for the World Bank Group in the oil, gas, and mining sectors—but only if its interventions allow extractive industries to contribute to poverty alleviation through sustainable development. And that can only happen when the right conditions are in place. The three main enabling conditions are: •pro-poor public and corporate governance, including proactive planning and management to maximize poverty alleviation through sustainable development; •much more effective social and environmental policies; and •respect for human rights. (EIR, Executive Summary, Vol. 1 page vii; original emphasis)

Given the controversial nature of this topic, I would like to request that someone attempts to revise the section with an eye to accuracy of reporting.

Many thanks!

208.13.218.117 21:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Aaron K. Dennis


[edit] Paul Wolfowitz

I'm curious as to why the World Bank would hire someone like Paul Wolfowitz? As far as I know he has no economic education. What he does have though is a very clear agenda and a "political and military strategist and policymaker" tag. For good reasons obviously. Considering the facts that we today know that the Iraq war was a hoax from start to beginning, every single reason turned out to be a lie and another excuse (and yeah also a lie), was put in it's place - I find it scary that the world bank would hire the man who "invented" the whole Iraq war in the first place. "a major architect of President Bush's Iraq war policy and, within the Administration, its most passionate and compelling advocate." (provided with 3 sources on the paul wolfowitz wiki page) An advocate of manifest destiny, in a very wide sense of the word. US global dominion.

Maybe they hired him for his social welfare work? :P

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz ;; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War ;; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

213.141.89.53 09:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Bank vs World Bank Group

What the hell is going on here? This article must have been written by a schizophrenic and maintained by complete ignorami, read the beginning of the article itself, the World Bank and World Bank Group are two different things, did anyone actually read the WB/WBG websites even?62.72.110.11 13:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Please differentiate between the World Bank Group and the World Bank. They are different institutions and have different websites within which you may find relevant information on each of them. The sites are World Bank: [[2]] and the World Bank Group: [[3]]. Thanks. 62.72.110.11 16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why hasn't this been merged?

Reading through this page, it seems pretty clear that it should be merged into the World Bank Group page. The later contains virtually all of the information here, is better laid out, and is easier to read. It also does a much better job of describing the difference between the World Bank and the World Bank Group. Why no action on this topic, especially given that the organization was in the news so much in the last few months? 70.90.48.161 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that you are at the talk page of World Bank Group and not that of World Bank? --Van helsing 19:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey in the Jar, who occasionally edits under various IP addresses, believes there is a significant difference between World Bank and World Bank Group. I marked the articles to be merge so that a concensus could be reach since World Bank has been redirected to World Bank Group twice recently and reverted by that editor. To avoid an edit war a consensus should be reached. Rich257 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The World Bank and the World Bank Group are different, The World Bank is only a part of the World Bank Group, hence they merit separate articles, every US State has its own article, yet they are all part of the US, the individual insitutions that make up the WB/WBG have their own articles, why not the World Bank? They have two different websites, they have different names, and different, yet overlapping, functions. If they were the same, why would they have different names and websites?

Yes, I didn't sign in, hence i edited under a different IP address. That address is 62.72.110.11.

Of course the WBG article is better laid out and easier to read, its been here for a long time, whereas the WB article is a rush job. Maybe you could try and improve it instead of just pointing out its flaws. Criticism is a really easy thing to dole out, but is usually only done by people who couldn't do any better themselves, so please prove me wrong.

Perhaps the reason the WBG article contains so much of the information is because it cannot decided whether it is talking about the World Bank or the World Bank Group, jumping between the two. As for drawing a definition, that it does do, but it then proceeds to blur that definition. If anyone had visited the World Bank website, they might have come across this [4], an FAQ pointing out that there is a difference between the World Bank and The World Bank Group.

My decision on the merge is quite clearly a no. Whiskey in the Jar 07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Rich, please don't put words in my mouth, I never said significant, I just said difference, and please don't suggest i might be sockpuppeteering, I edited the World Bank article under ONE IP address. I do occassionally edit under another IP address, my home address, and I try in no way to hide my identity. I hope you don't have a problem with that. Whiskey in the Jar 07:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly do not merge the two articles (imho)! Each institution deserves to have its own page, particularly given the impact that it makes. What is lacking is research on how the institutions work, how people are appointed there, how the financing occurs, source of money etc. So yes, the article is lacking, but it would defeat the purpose to place it into World Bank Group when eventually it would have to be split anyway because of length, particularly if you're going to do the same with all the others that fall under the World Bank Group umbrella. Sephui 09:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge some info

I don't think they should be merged, but I do think the information specific to the World Bank should be moved to the World Bank page. For example, the entire criticism section appears to deal with just the World Bank. Unless the writers were using "World Bank" when they meant "World Bank Group". Any objections to my moving the information specific to the world bank to that page? delldot talk 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So the consensus stands at 3:1 in favour of keeping the articles separate. Removing tag... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.133.151 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic facts

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (October 2007)
  • This article would be improved with basic facts about how much money the five funds collectively grant, loan, and collect from donor countries and other sources.
  • The discussion of structure would be improved with a discussion of who is in charge of each of the five individual funds.
  • The mention of "profit" is confusing. What kind of entity is the Group, a non-profit or a for-profit corporation that doesn't happen to distribute its profits to shareholders, or something else?
  • The intro seems a bit inaccurate; not all five of the institutions were created at the same time. Maybe the creation dates should be added to the list of the five funds.
  • Someone previously suggested adding the logos for each of the funds to their respective articles; these can be seen on: http://www.worldbankgroup.org/

-- Beland 15:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest IDA funding

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1423608820071214?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Britain (UK) is now the largest IDA donor with China and Egypt donating for the first time. This may alter the balance of voting and certainly means a couple of minor edits for the IDA section.RichasAA (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

what's the point of the following paragraph in the section "criticism? if there is any point in having it in the article at all, i'd suggest to move it:

World Bank standards and methods are, however, highly valued and adopted in areas such as transparent procedures for competitive procurement and environmental standards for project evaluation.[citation needed] World Bank also engages in funding the education of promising young people from developing countries through its graduate scholarship programs.

--Tomberlin (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Block quote

Block quote