Dear Shanta:
I want to clarify. My point was not that the World Bank stop or reduce lending to India per se. Rather that it focus on those areas where it has comparative advantage (how do we know what areas those are?), conditional on Indian states’ doing more on social sectors but using some output performance indicators rather than inputs.
I do not disagree with you that "For one thing, there is no guarantee that public services will improve if the Bank stops lending money for them," nor that "there is a good reason why the combination of knowledge and financial assistance can be more powerful than knowledge alone." But that justification can be used to continue lending in almost any circumstances, since how can we ever be certain that the alternative will not be even worse? I think you are underestimating the harm that is being done in continuing to give Indian states an external crutch when this is absolutely the basic responsibility of any state. Fundamentally, the financial and human resources are there in India. China and Cuba achieved this, as did Kerala, without fancy randomized trials, consultants, reports, and any external money.
I do think we (not just the Bank but academia, etc...)are a vested interest group to some extent at least. We see self-interest everywhere except in ourselves -- which is why we are very reluctant to walk away. How would we get more papers and publications if we did that? Or the World Bank more lending and reports on how much it is doing for the MDGs and justifications for IDA?
As you know I have refrained from writing and speaking about the World Bank and India ever since we wrote the history. I did not write this lightly. If you are interested you could post these comments on your blog and ask and see if Richard Webb shares my assessment (and is it different in Peru?). We may be wrong, but I do think given the amount of time we spent in trying to understand the Bank (yes, things have changed since
then!), our perspective has some empathy with the institution but also a certain distance.
Regards,
Devesh
Mariam Claeson
Fri, 03/07/2008 - 14:44 Sir, As Development is slow process, it is required to be approached with Multi dimensional Strategy. It is needless to say that world banks many projects like ICDS, JFM-CFM, ICZM, IPP, and Family welfare project etc. have really made many families benefitted in many parts of the country. At the same time it was resulted ineffective in other areas because of many reasons. What ever services you deliver to India the World Bank must look for flexible and need based strategy which will reach to the target population. What ever project or program you implement always there is a chance of associating positive and negative factors which makes program effective or ineffective. Hence one must require many more factors along with Knowledge assistance and Aid loans as a bullock cart and two wheels with a perfect rider Thankyou usha_01@rediffmail.com
Mon, 03/03/2008 - 16:52 This exchange raises a couple of important points. First, WB has a comparative advantage in certain areas. For those of us who observe outside the bank, it would be a great help to clearly lay those out, and to say when these change from time to time, but it also means coming to terms with its comparative disadvantages. Second, WB has a vested interest, like any organization. There is nothing wrong with that of course, except to the extent that disbursements become unspoken performance criteria. And providing national ownership or developing state capacity at some level do militate against the vested interest of keeping expertise close to heart. But it is not the vested interest that's the problem; it is a management structure that operates as if such interest is immaterial or accounted-for by formally giving governing seats to countries (its stakeholders) while skewing the decision-making power politically. I wonder if the bank would function better with a management consulting model or as a publicly-traded company, albeit focused on poverty-related expertise.