Once a long time ago here on AD we debated the pending resignation of
Paul Wolfowitz. In that debate we danced around the idea that The World Bank was a fairly corrupt and useless institution. Reports are coming out that point to 9 out of 10 dollars being wasted to corruption. While I'm all for the "good" The World Bank means to do, I am not for all the "bad" it's clearly involved in and facilitating.
QUOTE('WSJ')
The World Bank on Wednesday announced the resignation of Suzanne Rich Folsom as director of its anticorruption unit, or INT. "She was not forced out, she was not asked to leave," said external relations chief Marwan Muasher. That's one way of putting it.
Ms. Folsom is, in fact, leaving the bank of her own accord for a private-sector job, having recently completed a devastating report on $569 million worth of corrupted bank projects in India. But this is a story of a resignation by a thousand cuts. Along with her top deputies, Glenn Ware and Allison Brigati, Ms. Folsom departs having survived years of relentless vilification by a bank staff and even senior leadership determined to undermine her anticorruption efforts.
...
All of this might seem farcical were the stakes not so high. If the India report and others we've disclosed are anything to go by, at least some of these loans will go to projects in which nine of 10 dollars are either squandered or stolen by corrupt officials and middlemen, and where filthy, half-built hospitals are certified as completed to project specifications. That ought to matter to a "bank" that purports to have the interests of the world's poor at heart and whose annual lending portfolio tops $30 billion.
I'm going to leave the soap opera out of this when I ask these
Questions for Debate:1-With this level of corruption why shouldn't the United States pull out of The World Bank?2-How could the United States create another world bank type of organization to prevent such corruption?3-At what point should The World Bank be abolished for corruption?