5 August 2010
It is one thing for the World Bank to promote a discourse of transparency and information disclosure and quite another to commit to being a public finance institution that respects all of the rights of people affected by the projects which they finance. Unfortunately, the Bank has not been willing to make this commitment.
Valeria Enriquez, Fundar
August 4, 2010
A few weeks ago, the World Bank launched its new Information Disclosure policy which, while progressive when compared to the policies of the other International Financial Institutions (IFIs) - be they the Inter-American Development Bank or the International Monetary Fund- leaves much to be desired when compared to Mexico’s Federal Law on Transparency.
Although this is not the place to delve into technical details regarding the deficiencies of the new policy, it is the place to talk about the limits of this newfound interest in transparency and accountability: indispensable buzz words in any discussion among top officials and managers of the IFIs. These words, however, often lack any real value or meaning, and above all, a true commitment to the right of an individual to know what the banks are financing in their region, the available spaces to participate effectively in these processes, and the actors and resources involved.
It’s been said that it’s the thought that counts, however it’s one thing for the World Bank to promote a discourse of transparency and information disclosure in order to clean up its image and be considered a new institution that generates knowledge and spurs development, and quite another to commit to being a public finance institution whose mission is poverty alleviation and respects each and every one of the rights of the people and communities affected by Bank-financed projects.
Unfortunately, the Bank has not been willing to make this commitment. In neither a single paragraph in the new policy nor a single line of the manual the Bank developed for its employees is this fundamental idea found. The Bank instead opts to keep its discourse within a framework of institutionalism and good governance, but never one of rights.
In practice, the institution has never shown much interest in or commitment to adopting a focus on rights, but rather one focused on image. For example, I was recently invited to a dinner on one of the top floors of the Torre Mayor, at which the central objective was to hear the perception of the dozen or so guests of the World Bank and evaluate whether that perception had changed over time. My question was: Why did they invite only 10 people then? Why don’t they hold a consultation with communities affected by their projects to truly find out which actions should change and which should be strengthened? Immediately, I realized the answer: they do not do it because they do not need to. They know perfectly well (because there are independent studies as well as Bank studies that confirm it) the weaknesses and the areas for improvement. This event was about image alone and was a prerequisite to justify to its member countries that the Bank merits a capital increase similar to those that the other IFIs are seeking, to (in theory) be able to increase the volume of loans to the countries that need them most.
More is not always better. Better is better, and that is what the Bank should commit itself to: improving transparency, increasing spaces for effective participation, and above all, improving the real impact of its projects so that international public resources earmarked for promoting development do just that, rather than continue perpetuating vicious cycles of debt while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that have long been identified.
To read the full article, click "Español" at the upper right-hand corner of the page.
* Valeria Enríquez is a researcher focused on Transparency and Accountability in the International Financial Institutions at Fundar, Center for Analysis and Investigation in Mexico City and a collaborator of México Infórmate.