|
Introduction
According to
The World Bank, it is,
"a
vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries
around the world. We are not a bank in the common sense. We are made up of
two unique development institutions owned by 184 member countries—the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
and the International Development Association (IDA). Each
institution plays a different but supportive role in our mission of global
poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards. The IBRD
focuses on middle income and creditworthy poor countries, while IDA
focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together we provide
low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing
countries for education, health, infrastructure, communications and many
other purposes." 1
High-minded words like "our mission of global poverty reduction and the
improvement of living standards" would lead the reader to believe that
the World Bank is some benevolent and global welfare organization.
Why is it then, that The World Bank joins the International Monetary Fund
and the World Trade Organization as organizations that people around the
world just love to hate?
In reality, the World Bank carries its weight, along with the International
Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements, to forcibly
integrate minor countries of the world into its own brand of capitalistic
democracy.
World Bank Beginnings
A sibling of the IMF, the World Bank was born out of the U.N. Monetary and
Financial Conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in July, 1944. The
original name given to the World Bank was the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and reflects its original
mission: to rebuild Europe after the devastation of World War II. The name "World
Bank" was not actually adopted until 1975.
Both the IBRD and the IMF were created as independent specialized agencies
of the
United Nations, of which they remain to this day.
The word "Development" in the IBRD name was rather insignificant at
the time because most of the southern hemisphere was still under colonial
rule, with each colonial master responsible for the business activities in
their respective countries.
Note: It is argued by some that there was an original desire by banking
elites to put an end to colonialism by restructuring investment and trade
patterns in colonized countries. This paper will not deal with this issue,
but it should be noted that this has been exactly what has happened, in many
cases being aided by the operations of the World Bank and the IMF.
As a "reconstruction" bank, however, the World Bank was impotent. It
ultimately loaned only $497(US) million for reconstruction projects. The
Marshall Plan, by contrast, became the true engine of the reconstruction of
Europe by loaning over $41(US) billion by 1953.
The primary architects of the World Bank were Harry Dexter White and
John Maynard Keynes, both of whom are summarized
Global Banking: The International Monetary Fund
as follows:
"Such
is the moral fiber and intellectual credentials of the creators of the IMF
[and the World Bank]: One was an English ideologue economist with a
markedly global bent, and the other a corrupt and high-ranking U.S.
government official who was a top Soviet spy."2
Structure of the World Bank
Today, the World Bank consists of two primary units: The already-mentioned
IBRD and the International Development Association (IDA), which was created
in 1960.
The IBRD lends only to governments who are credit-worthy; in other words,
there is an expectation that they will repay their loans. The IDA, by
contrast, only lends to governments who are not credit-worthy and are
usually the poorest nations. Together, they create a "one-two" punch
in global lending to any government that they are able to talk into
borrowing. The U.S. currently contributes about $1 billion per year of
taxpayer funds to the IDA.
Three other affiliates combine with the World Bank, to be collectively
called the World Bank Group:
IBRD
funds its lending operations by selling AAA-rated bonds and other debt
instruments to other banks, pension funds, insurance companies and
corporations around the world. By contrast, the IDA is funded by (taxpayer)
contributions from member countries. Annual levels of lending is roughly
equal between IBRD and IDA. While the IFC generates its own capital in open
markets, MIGA and ICSID receive the majority of their funding from the World
Bank, much of which is taxpayer funded.
Ownership of the World Bank consists of voting shares held by member
countries, according to size and contributions. Currently, the U.S. is the
largest shareholder with 16.4 percent of total votes. The next largest
voting blocks are Japan (7.9 percent) and Germany (4.5 percent).
Because
major decisions require an 85 percent super-majority vote, the U.S. can
effectively veto any change (100% -16.4% = 83.6%).
American Hegemony
It should be noted that
the United Nations is headquartered in the
United States, on land originally donated to it by
David Rockefeller. The Bretton Woods
Conference was held in New Hampshire. Every president of the World Bank
has hailed from the United States. It is no wonder that the rest of the
world views the World Bank as an American operation.
There has been an unwritten but traditional rule that the World Bank
president will always be an American, while the president of the IMF is
European. (A recent exception to this is the current IMF president, who is
Canadian)
It is instructive to review the past presidents of the World Bank, because
it demonstrates which elite cabal is really in control of World Bank
operations. In turn, this will point strongly to the real beneficiaries
of the World Bank hegemony.
The
complete biographies and accomplishments of these men far exceed the
available space in this report, so only a few highlights are noted.
1.
Eugene Meyer. June to December, 1946.
Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve from 1930-1933; owner
of the Washington Post; Member,
Council on Foreign Relations; agent of
Lazard Freres, Brown Brothers, Harriman; appointed head of the War Finance
Corporation during WWI by Woodrow Wilson.
2. John J. McCloy. March 1947 to April 1949.
Member and chair of the
Council on Foreign Relations; Chairman,
Ford Foundation; Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank; lawyer whose firm was
council to Chase Manhattan Bank.
3. Eugene Black. July 1949 to December 1962.
Chairman, Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve System (1933-34);
senior vice president of Chase Manhattan Bank; Member,
Council on Foreign Relations; member of
Bilderbergers; created the International
Finance Corporation and the International Development Association at the
World Bank.
4. George Woods. January 1963 to March 1968.
Vice
president of Harris, Forbes & Co.; vice president of Chase Bank; vice
president of and board member of First Boston Corp. (one of the largest
U.S. investment banking firms).
5. Robert Strange McNamara. April 1968 to June 1981.
President and director of Ford Motor Company; Secretary of Defense in the
Kennedy and Johnson administrations; member of
Trilateral Commission,
Council on Foreign Relations
and
Bilderbergers; honorary council trustee
of Aspen Institute. Personally negotiated China’s entrance into the World
Bank.
6. A.W. Clausen. July 1981 to June 1986.
President, CEO and chairman of Bank of America; member,
Trilateral Commission; member, Bretton-Woods
Committee.
7. Barber B. Conable. July 1986 to August 1991.
Member of U.S. House of Representatives from 1965 to 1985; member
Trilateral Commission
and
Council on Foreign Relations; senior
fellow, American Enterprise Institute; board member, New York Stock
Exchange; member, Commission on Global Governance.
8. Lewis T. Preston. September 1991 to May 1995.
President, CEO and chairman of J.P. Morgan & Co., and chairman of the
executive committee; vice president of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.; member
and treasurer of
Council on Foreign Relations; director of
General Electric.
9. James D. Wolfensohn. June 1995 to 2005
Executive partner and head of the investment banking department, Salomon
Brothers (New York); executive deputy chairman and managing director,
Schroders Ltd. (London); director, Rockefeller Foundation; board member,
Rockefeller University; honorary trustee, Brookings Institution; Director,
Population Council (founded by John D. Rockefeller); member,
Council on Foreign Relations.
10. Paul Wolfowitz. 2005 - present.
Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005); member,
Trilateral Commission; member,
Council on Foreign Relations; member,
Bilderbergers; director of the neocon
flagship, Project for the New American Century (PNAC); member of the elite
"Vulcans" group that advised
George W. Bush on foreign policy
during the 2000 presidential elections (other neocon members included
Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Richard Perle); member of and frequent
speaker at Social Democrats USA (successor to the Socialist Party of
America).
An
important pattern emerges here. These men frame a 50-year time period
stretching from 1946 to 2006. The early players have long since passed away.
There was no social connection between the early and latter presidents.
Yet,
seven out of ten are members of the Council on Foreign Relations; four are
members of the Trilateral Commission, seven have major global bank
affiliations (Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, First Boston,
Brown Brothers, Harriman, Salomon Brothers, Federal Reserve), and four men
were directly connected to
Rockefeller interests.
A detailed analysis is not required to see the pattern emerge: Global
bankers (the same old crowd) and their related global proxies, have
completely dominated the World Bank for its entire history. Collectively and
individually, they have always operated purposefully and consistently for
their own self-interested, financial gain.
Why
would anyone expect even one of them to act out of character (e.g., be
concerned for world poverty) while directing the helm of the World Bank?
Purposes of convenience
Whatever the true purposes of the World Bank and IMF might have been, the
publicly displayed purposes have changed when it was convenient and
necessary.
In 1944, reconstruction of war torn countries after WW II was the important
issue.
When the Bank demonstrated its impotence by loaning only a pittance of less
than $500 million, it changed its pubic image by positioning itself as a
check and balance to the expansion of communism. Without the World Bank to
engage all of the lesser countries of the world who were susceptible to
communist influence, communism might spread and ultimately threaten to end
the cold war with an ugly nuclear Holocaust.
Public and legislative sentiment ultimately fizzled and the Bank was again
under heavy criticism when Robert Strange McNamara was appointed
president.
Poverty Reduction: Trojan Horse
As noted above, McNamara was president of the World Bank from 1968 through
1981. He was also among the original membership of the Trilateral
Commission, founded in 1973 by Rockefeller and Brzezinski, and was widely
considered to be a central figure in
the global elite of his day.
It was McNamara who caused the focus of the World Bank to fall on poverty
and poverty reduction. This has essentially remained the siren call right
into the present. This was a brilliant maneuver because who would ever say
they are anti-poor or pro-poverty? Any attack on the Bank would thus be
viewed as an attack on poverty relief itself. From 1968 onward, the battle
cry of the Bank has been "eliminate poverty."
This is clearly seen on the About Us page of the World Bank web site,
where these words are prominently displayed:
"Each
institution (IBRD and IDA) plays a different but supportive role in our
mission of global poverty reduction and the improvement of
living standards." [emphasis added]
However, Article I of The Articles of Agreement of the IBRD, as
amended on February 16, 1989, state its official Purposes as follows:
(i)
To assist in the reconstruction and development of territories of members
by facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes,
including the restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war, the
reconversion of productive facilities to peacetime needs and the
encouragement of the development of productive facilities and resources in
less developed countries.
(ii) To promote private foreign investment by means of guarantees
or participations in loans and other investments made by private
investors; and when private capital is not available on reasonable terms,
to supplement private investment by providing, on suitable conditions,
finance for productive purposes out of its own capital, funds raised by it
and its other resources.
(iii) To promote the long-range balanced growth of international
trade and the maintenance of equilibrium in balances of payments by
encouraging international investment for the development of the productive
resources of members, thereby assisting in raising productivity, the
standard of living and conditions of labor in their territories.
(iv) To arrange the loans made or guaranteed by it in relation to
international loans through other channels so that the more useful and
urgent projects, large and small alike, will be dealt with first.
(v) To conduct its operations with due regard to the effect of
international investment on business conditions in the territories of
members and, in the immediate postwar years, to assist in bringing about a
smooth transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy.
The
Bank shall be guided in all its decisions by the purposes set forth above.3
Note that the word "poverty" does not appear even once. The reason is clear:
Whatever "business as usual" might be with the Bank, it has nothing
to do with poverty or poverty reduction. Rather, the Bank is in business to
loan money by stimulating borrowing demand in developing countries, with a
view to increasing international trade. The primary beneficiaries of
international trade are the global corporations, and the poor are actually
poorer as a result.
This hypocrisy was noted even by Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief
economist, Joseph Stiglitz, as late as 2002:
As
far as these ’client countries’ were concerned, it was a charade in which
the politicians pretended to do something to redress the problems [of
poverty] while financial interests worked to preserve as much of the
status quo as they could. 4
Liberalization and Structural Adjustments
When Alden Clausen (also an original member of the Trilateral
Commission) took over the reins from Robert McNamara in 1981, a
massive shakeup in the bank occurred. As Stiglitz noted,
"In
the early 1980’s a purge occurred inside the World Bank, in its research
department, which guided the Bank’s thinking and direction."5
Clausen, a true core member of the global elite, brought in a new chief
economist with radical new ideas:
"...Ann Krueger, an international trade specialist, best known for her
work on ’rent seeking’ -- how special interests use tariffs and other
protectionist measures to increase their incomes at the expense of
others... Krueger saw government as the problem. Free markets were the
solution to the problems of developing countries."
6
This
was precisely the time when so-called liberalization policies and
Structural Adjustments were forcefully implemented as a means of forcing
countries to privatize industries. If governments were the problem, then
they should turn over areas of critical infrastructure to private
multinational corporations which, according to Krueger, could perform better
and more efficiently than bureaucratic government bodies.
Not surprisingly, most of the career staff economists left the Bank in the
early 1980’s in protest over Clausen and Krueger’s policies.
How the Money Laundry Works
The mechanism and operation of Structural Adjustments, along with the tight
cooperation between the IMF and the World Bank, was adequately covered in
The August Review’s Global Banking: The International
Monetary Fund.
The
following well-documented example will be the "picture worth a thousand
words" in the Review’s effort to profile self-serving Bank and global
corporate policies. It also demonstrates the "tag-team" approach used by the
Bank and IMF in the prying open of closed markets in uncooperative
countries. It’s a rather tangled story, but careful reading will produce
understanding of how the "system" works.
Water Wars
In 1998, the IMF approved a loan of $138 million for Bolivia it described as
designed to help the country control inflation and stabilize its domestic
economy. The loan was contingent upon Bolivia’s adoption of a series of
"structural reforms," including
privatization of "all remaining public enterprises,"
including water services.
Once
these loans were approved, Bolivia was under intense pressure from the World
Bank to ensure that no public subsidies for water existed and that all water
projects would be run on a "cost recovery" basis, meaning that citizens must
pay the full construction, financing, operation and maintenance costs of a
water project. Because water is an essential human need and is crucial for
agriculture, cost recovery pricing is unusual, even in the developed world.
In this context, Cochabamba, the third largest city in Bolivia, put its
water works up for sale in late 1999. Only one entity, a consortium led by
Bechtel subsidiary Aguas del Tunari, offered a bid, and it was
awarded a 40-year concession to provide water. The exact details of the
negotiation were kept secret, and Bechtel claimed that the numbers within
the contract are "intellectual property."
But, it
later came to light that the price included the financing by Cochabamba’s
citizens of a part of a huge dam construction project being undertaken by
Bechtel, even though water from the
Misicuni Dam Project would be 600% more
expensive than alternative water sources. Cochabambans were also required to
pay Bechtel a contractually guaranteed 15% profit, meaning that the people
of Cochabamba were asked to pay for investments while the private sector got
the profits.
Immediately upon receiving the concession, the company raised water rates by
as much as 400% in some instances. These increases came in an area where the
minimum wage is less than $100 a month. After the price hike, self-employed
men and women were estimated to pay one quarter of their monthly earnings
for water.
The city’s residents were outraged. In January of 2000, a broad coalition
called the Coordination for the Defense of Water and Life, or simply
La Coordinadora, led by a local worker, Oscar Olivera, called
for peaceful demonstrations. Cochabamba was shut down for four days by a
general strike and transportation stoppage, but the demonstrations stopped
once the government promised to intervene to lower water rates. However,
when there were no results in February, the demonstrations started again.
This time, however, demonstrators were met with tear gas and police
opposition, leaving 175 injured and two youths blinded.
The threat that privatization of public services under GATS (General
Agreement on Trade in Services) poses to democracy were demonstrated in
March 2000. La Coordinadora held an unofficial referendum, counted
nearly 50,000 votes, and announced that 96% of the respondents favored the
cancellation of the contract with Aguas del Tunari. They were told by
the water company that there was nothing to negotiate.
On April 4, the residents of the city returned to the streets, shutting down
the city. Again, they were met with police resistance, and on April 8, the
government declared martial law. The Bolivian military shot a 17-year-old
protester in the face, killing him. However, the protests continued, and, on
April 10, the government relented, signing an accord that agreed to the
demand of the protesters to reverse the water concession. The people of
Cochabamba took back their water.
Unfortunately, this inspiring story didn’t simply end with the victory for
the people of Cochabamba. On February 25, 2002,
Bechtel filed a grievance using investor
protections granted in a Bolivia-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Agreement
at the World Bank, demanding a $25 million dollar payment as compensation
for lost profits.7
Note: Bechtel Engineering is the largest civil engineering
company in the world. It is privately owned by the Bechtel family. For many
years, general counsel (and vice-president) for Bechtel was none other than
original Trilateral Commission member Caspar Weinberger.
Since then, the World Bank has granted additional "poverty
reduction" loans to Bolivia. Carefully read the Bank’s current (2006)
assessment on Bolivia found on its web site:
"Bolivia is experiencing a time of difficulty and uncertainty. In recent
months, various political and social disturbances have escalated with
serious consequences, culminating in the resignation of President Gonzalo
Sánchez de Lozada in October 2003, and the appointment of Vice-President
Carlos Mesa as President. The current administration inherits a difficult
economic, political and social climate, which is compounded by long-term
issues, such as profound inequality, an economy that has been adversely
affected by the region’s recent economic slump, and widespread public
disenchantment with corruption." 8
Political and social disturbances? Difficult economic, political and
social climate? Profound inequality? Widespread disenchantment
with corruption? It leaves one speechless.
So, in the case of Bolivia, we see the following in operation:
-
An
IMF loan is made to Bolivia, with conditionalities
-
The
World Bank steps in to enforce the conditionalities and impose
structural adjustments
-
The
World Bank loans "development" funds to Bolivia, and simultaneously
brings in private bank consortiums to fund the various projects that
Bechtel had in mind.
-
Bechtel makes a sole-source bid, and it is accepted.
-
The
water project ends in total failure and Bechtel gets kicked out after
extreme political pressure from consumers.
-
Bechtel files a "lost profit" claim according to a pre-negotiated
"insurance guarantee" with the World Bank Group (MIGA, see above.)
-
If
Bechtel wins its claim, it will be paid off with taxpayer money
contributed by member countries.
-
Undoubtedly, any loans from private-sector banks that later turn sour,
will be bailed-out with taxpayer funds as well.
This
kind of operation is brazen stealing (albeit perhaps legally) of
funds from everyone in sight: Bolivia, the city of Cochabamba, the people of
Cochabamba, U.S. taxpayers. The only beneficiaries are Bechtel, the
commercial banks and a few corrupt politicians who got their customary
bribes and kickbacks.
A penetrating question remains to be answered: When did Bechtel first set
their sights on the Bolivia deal? Did Bechtel have a role in suggesting or
creating the conditionalities and Structural Adjustments specified by the
World Bank in the first place? If so, there would be grounds for criminal
investigation.
It is not likely that the World Bank will tell us, because of its very
secretive inner workings. Even Stiglitz has noted,
"The
IMF and World Bank still have disclosure standards far weaker than those
of governments in democracies like the United States, or Sweden or Canada.
They attempt to hide critical reports; it is only their inability to
prevent leaks that often forces the eventual disclosure."
9
Corruption
The World Bank has received accusations of corruption for many years.
Since the Bank is an independent specialized agency of
the United
Nations and considering the old adage, "The fruit doesn’t fall
far from the tree", this might not come as a surprise to most.
The
United Nations has a major and documented track record on corruption of
every conceivable sort. It would be too simplistic to just leave it at that.
In May, 2004, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), as Chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, kicked off the most recent inquiry into
corruption related to the activities of the multilateral development banks,
of which the World Bank is foremost.
The heads of the various development banks were invited to testify
(voluntarily) before the Committee. According to Sen. Lugar, James
Wolfensohn,
"declined the invitation, citing the established practice of Bank
officials not to testify before the legislatures of their numerous member
countries."
Witnesses before the Committee testified that as much as $100 billion may
have been lost to corruption in World Bank lending projects.
In Sen. Lugar’s opening remarks, he points out that the entire history of
the World Bank is suspect, with between 5 percent and 25 percent of all
lending being lost to corruption.
"But
corruption remains a serious problem. Dr. Jeffrey Winters of Northwestern
University, who will testify before us today, estimates that the World
Bank ’has participated mostly passively in the corruption of roughly $100
billion of its loan funds intended for development.’ Other experts
estimate that between 5 percent and 25 percent of the $525 billion that
the World Bank has lent since 1946 has been misused.
This
is equivalent to between $26 billion and $130 billion. Even if corruption
is at the low end of estimates, millions of people living in poverty may
have lost opportunities to improve their health, education, and economic
condition." 10
One
must wonder why World Bank officials have been so sloppy and careless with
taxpayer dollars. Even further, one must wonder if the corruption was a
necessity to achieve the underlying purposes of the Bank, that is, to create
bogus and unwanted projects in order to "stimulate" trade.
Sen. Lugar continued his opening remarks,
"Corruption thwarts development efforts in many ways. Bribes can influence
important bank decisions on projects and on contractors. Misuse of funds
can inflate project costs, deny needed assistance to the poor, and cause
projects to fail. Stolen money may prop up dictatorships and finance human
rights abuses. Moreover, when developing countries lose development bank
funds through corruption, the taxpayers in those poor countries are still
obligated to repay the development banks. So, not only are the
impoverished cheated out of development benefits, they are left to repay
the resulting debts to the banks."11
It has
not been determined which Bank employees might have taken bribes in exchange
for influence, but one can be sure that any deal starting with corruption
only has one direction to go -- down. In the end, it is helpless individuals
who are left holding the bag. The incurred debts and failed projects just
add to the impoverishment of already poor people.
This is not to say that charges of corruption at the World Bank are modern
revelations only. In 1994, marking the 50th anniversary of its
creation at Bretton Woods, South End Press released "50 Years is
Enough: The Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund,."
edited by Kevin Danaher. The book details official Bank and IMF reports that
reveal the same kind of corruption back then.
In
addition, it revealed different types of corruption, for instance,
"Beyond the wasted money and the environmental devastation, there was an
even more sinister side to the Bank during the McNamara years: the World
Bank’s predilection for increasing support to military regimes that
tortured and murdered their subjects, sometimes immediately after the
violent overthrow of more democratic governments. In 1979, Senator
James Abourezk (D-South Dakota) denounced the bank on the Senate
floor, noting that the Bank was increasing ’loans to four newly repressive
governments [Chile, Uruguay, Argentina and the Philippines] twice as fast
as all others.’
He
noted that 15 of the world’s most repressive governments would receive a
third of all World Bank loan commitments in 1979, and that Congress and
the Carter administration had cut off bilateral aid to four of the 15 --
Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Ethiopia -- for flagrant human rights
violations. He blasted the Bank’s ’excessive secretiveness’ and reminded
his colleagues that ’we vote the money, yet we do not know where it
goes.’" 12
The
text speaks for itself and needs no comment. Readers of this report will
likely have a better understanding of where the money went!
Conclusions
This report does not pretend to be an exhaustive analysis of the World
Bank. There are many facets, examples and case studies that could be
explored. In fact, many critical and analytical books have been written
about the World Bank. The object of this report was to show how the World
Bank fits into globalization as a central member in the triad of global
monetary powers: The IMF, the BIS and the World Bank.
The World Bank is likely to continue to operate despite any amount of
political flack or public protest. Such is the pattern of elitist-dominated
institutions. Such is the history of the International Monetary Fund
and the Bank for International Settlements.
It is sufficient to conclude that...
-
of
the two architects of the World Bank, one was a top Soviet communist agent
(Harry Dexter White) and the other was a British ideologue (John Maynard
Keynes) totally dedicated to globalism (See
Global Banking:
The International Monetary Fund for more details on White and
Keynes)
-
From
the beginning, the Bank has been dominated by international banking
interests and members of the Council on Foreign Relations and later by the
Trilateral Commission
-
the
cry of "poverty reduction" is a sham to conceal the recycling of billions
of taxpayer dollars, if not trillions, into private hands
-
the
cry of "poverty reduction" defuses critics of the Bank as being
anti-poor and pro-poverty
-
corruption at the World Bank goes back decades, if not all the way to the
very beginning
Footnotes
-
World Bank web site, About Page
-
The August Review, Global Banking: The
International Monetary Fund
-
World Bank web site, IBRD Articles of
Agreement: Article I
-
Stiglitz, Globalization and its
Discontents (Norton, 2002), p. 234
-
ibid, p. 13
-
ibid
-
Wallach, Whose Trade Organization? (The
New Press, 2004), p.125]
-
See also, Bechtel Vs. Bolivia: The
Bolivian Water Revolt
-
See also, The New Yorker, letter on
Leasing the Rain
-
See also, PBS, Leasing the Rain
-
World Bank web site, Bolivia Country Brief
-
Stiglitz, op. cit., p. 234
-
Lugar, U.S. Senate Website, $100 billion
may have been lost to World Bank Corruption, May 13, 2004
-
ibid.
-
Hanaher, 50 Years is Enough: The Case
Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, (South End
Press, 1994), p. 10
|