More than one crisis at World Bank
The controversy over Paul Wolfowitz raises questions about the US role and the bank's future.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitorfrom the May 15, 2007 edition
Page 1 of 3
Washington - Whether Paul Wolfowitz remains president of the World Bank or not, the furor over his leadership raises questions about the importance of reforming the policies and structure of an institution born more than 60 years ago, at a time of very different global financial needs.
Does the bank still need to make loans to middle-income countries, for instance, given the rivers of investment capital that now flow around the world? Does the tradition of allowing the United States to name the bank's president make sense any longer?
Does the bank even need to continue to exist?
"The good thing about this crisis is that the US government may realize it has to pay more attention to these international financial institutions," says Colin Bradford, a senior fellow for global economics and development at the Brookings Institution. "It's not enough to just put your guy in there."
The future of the US-designated leader of the World Bank should become clear this week. An internal special committee has been investigating controversy surrounding Mr. Wolfowitz's actions in regard to his companion, Shaha Riza, who on his direction was given a large pay raise when she was reassigned from the World Bank to the State Department in 2005.
Wolfowitz says he tried to recuse himself from the situation and took personal action only after the bank's ethics committee said he must. Bank officials say they were unaware of the generous terms of Ms. Riza's transfer.
RSS feed
