I am sure that everybody would agree that development is multifaceted and that, as Sen argued, progress on any front helps in the progress on the others.

But I don’t think it necessarily follows that organisations like the World Bank should take a multifaceted approach or even coordinate their work with other development agencies. The reason is that, while everybody can generally agree on whether some economic project is likely to improve a country [*], it is not at all the case that everybody can agree on the benefits of social or political projects, let alone whether those projects ought to take primacy over an economic one.

You and I probably agree on what rights ought to be afforded to homosexuals or religious minorities, but I think we would meet fierce resistance to our views in Yemen. By doing anything to associate our views with financial assistance in building infrastructure in Sana’a will be seen as insulting and demeaning by the people of Yemen. I’m all for working to convince them of the benefits of a more tolerant society, but when we force our values on them against their will, we rob them of their ability to choose for themselves. I don’t see how that would be anything other than cultural colonialism.

[*] Plenty of people have rightly criticised various World Bank initiatives, but I suspect that most of those criticisms are about corruption or the onerous nature of the debt imposed and not about the benefits of the projects per se. There are certainly some - large dams and the environmental impact, for example - but I think that they are outnumbered by the concerns about debt and corruption.

The World Bank seems to be tightly constrained by it’s Articles of Agreement and its economic mandate. Many thinkers at the front of development eschew this as the only approach the development (see my book review of Amartya Sen’s _Development as Freedom_ at http://blog.stodden.net/2008/03/18/book-review-development-as-freedom-by-amartya-sen/). But to change the World Bank mandate is indeed a big task. As you note it might be easier to change the mandate of the IMF, since it is not as tightly bound to economic development as the World Bank is.

John,

Great blog post. I agree the four reasons listed by Sarfaty for implementing a human rights policy at the World bank are not compelling. The interesting question you point out is whether development is multifaceted as Sen suggests (again see my book review), which implies expanding the World Bank’s role is appropriate (or if the Bank remains relegated to the economic role it works in concert with other development mechanisms) or whether efforts should be directed toward economic development as a first priority. I absolutely agree that a better understanding of the causality of development is vital, and this will allow us to answer your second question about the institutional design best suited for development.
Sarfaty does make an interesting point that a human rights plan within the World Bank could make sense in that it would bring a different strategic mandate to World Bank developers and thus increase the range of policy choices available. World Bank workers, she says, often feel overly constrained by rigid rules they cannot adapt to local culture and environments.

The International Monetary Fund, under the leadership of Dominique Strauss Khan, has been shifting its own pragmatic profiles. Strauss understands this world, where China, India, Brasil, South Africa, Russia are playing influential roles. We all must realize this new scenario: we live among a diminishing hegemony. The United States and Europe should exercise their memories and make some feedbacks among their institutions. There are no longer modern or democratic institutions on the “occident”.

The World Bank is one illustrative example on how “occidental” institutions have lost their primal identity, and shows us their bloody teeth.

My opinion is that Straus Khan should re-configure the IMF, change its name and start a new era. The World Bank has nothing to give, because it is still under the leadership of a mob.

Sincerely,

Gerardo Ballesteros de León.