Global commodity prices are continuing to plummet. Demand for the IMF and the World Bank is growing. However, in the midst of this, financial institutions are struggling to keep up with the massive changes that can be seen in today’s world. They are becoming more ineffective to the challenges that the world faces when they are needed the most. How to overcome this controversial dilemma? How can the World Bank grow to become the institution it was always meant to be – a preemptive and responsive financial institution that effectively fights poverty and sustains development? And can it be trusted to rise to the challenge?
Since its formation in 1945, the World Bank has been under large scrutiny for failing to alleviate poverty and sustain positive economic development in developing countries. The international organization is either seen as an instrument of power used by developed countries to impose Western values and norms onto the rest of the world, or as a dysfunctional body that has only worsened national and regional situations.
The World Bank’s Legitimacy
In order to discern if these accusations are indeed true, it is worthwhile looking at the legitimacy and effectiveness of the World Bank. The institution is comprised of 189 member countries, in which the US holds the highest of 16.3 % of the total voting power followed by Japan with only 7.03%. As such, the World Bank is heavily dependent upon the US and vice versa, implying that the institution is largely structured by a hegemonic desire to lever foreign policies.
Arguably, the Bank is therefore founded upon many of the same structures such as the US, especially that of neoliberalism, making it standardised and to some extent normatively illegitimate as it operates within an environment that should warrant multilateral governance structures and ideologies. This decline in normative legitimacy has prevailed for many years but is something that is vital to the future success of the institution.
This is not to say that the influence of the World Bank is not necessary; merely that the current organisational structure should be reconsidered to include a multi-dimensional approach to poverty, where the re-allocation of power and resources would incorporate a new normative framework for the relationship between poverty and economic growth. Naturally, Rome was not built in one day, and in contemporary politics, where the stakes are significantly higher than ever before, it is important to be realistic about the idea of great powers dispersing more and more of their power. So far, events are beginning to point into the direction of increased unilateralism with the protectionist policies of Donald Trump and the UK’s removal from the EU.
The effectiveness of the World Bank has been held back by the veto power of the US and its interests. However, more importantly, it seems to be disrupted by the lack of holistic understanding and the application of poverty alleviation and development. 30 years ago, it was accepted that economic growth was the main driver behind development and that social policies were relatively insignificant. This perception changed 20 years ago where poverty, rather than economic growth, became the underlying assumption of development. In other words, poverty changed from being a merely economic problem to a multidimensional one, in which other aspects such as social development became just as important. As a result, the World Bank suffered an institutional crisis as it was operating on the former assumption. Today, it operates within a more holistic model but one that is shunned due to its continuous econocentric culture.
Altogether, the capability of the World Bank to be effective in the respective developing countries is limited because of its strongly rooted Western culture and US dominance. The agency of weaker states is often trapped in a pit where overarching voices tend to drown them with their large cheers or quarrels. However, just because it is underrepresented in the global economic and order, this does not mean that they should be secluded from it.
A New Approach?
Indeed, the World Bank should start thinking about effectively incorporating small agencies of states to participate with their different notions of capitalism that is more equipped to deal with development issues in their respective countries. Although this new multilateral approach would open up a space for slower and ineffective decision-making, it is nevertheless a crucial component for the World Bank to move forward. It could prevent further ineffectiveness by foregoing its long-term vision to try and focus more effectively on short-and medium-term financial and development initiatives or direct its brand from being global in outreach to being more locally focused in areas that need its assistance the most- mainly Africa, Latin America and Asia. Altogether, centralizing efforts so that member states would agree more effectively and purposely on lesser things.
Is the World Bank Relevant?
Is the World Bank relevant? If the venture is so futile, why are so many resources spent on it? Simply put: because it has to, and needs to be done. Financial volatility has never been higher, commodity prices are plunging, the global economy has grown 13-fold but is seeing slowdowns, and we have never seen a migration crisis bigger than World War II as a result of ongoing civil and regional conflicts. Poor and unstable countries simply cannot operate on a large enough scale to deal with economic slowdown, poverty and failing development. Such provides an opportunity for the World Bank to interfere, but it must do so with greater selectivity and a smarter strategic approach to the allocation of capital, so that the vastly diverse set of countries has access to more tailored treatments. As Mark Lowcock, the Permanent Secretary at the UK’s Department for International Development, summarizes:
“The World Bank has been successful with a broadly one-size fits all, first come, first served model which does its best to meet demand but which is careful not to take on too much risk. But it now has a far more diverse set of clients, with different needs, levels of wealth and ability to borrow on the market”
In other words, the world has become too big for one single good idea. It is imperative that models start to reflect the complexity that has emerged as a result of cross-border issues. They might be more uncertain and risk-prone but they would be able to better anticipate outcomes, which is highly necessary when assessing and implementing the allocation of money and resources.
Ideas for Change
Ultimately, in order to keep up with the growing demand, the World Bank needs to expand, but at the same time let go of its naïve notion that it can save everyone with its broad and global outlook. In order to be more effective and responsive to the massive socio-economic challenges, the World Bank must become more multilateral to gain deeper understandings of capitalism in its varied forms. It must also become more selective and centred around certain areas so that financial initiatives offered can be tailored, and thus more effective in combating economic and social issues in that respective country.
Another suggestion is to divert its culture from its econocentric state so that the normative framework of the institution successfully grasps the relationship between economic growth and poverty; and finally, it must create a more holistic system such that initiatives become sustainable and where high-performing countries also get rewarded.
However, one thing is to come up with all these new ideas- another is to bring them to life and to implement them effectively. Whether or not the World Bank can be trusted to do so might not be a matter of ability, but rather a matter of trust and respect.
As mentioned, the World Bank has suffered exhaustive critique, especially pointed towards its legitimacy and identity – arguably because Western notions of capitalism along with the US’ dominance is so imprinted in the institution. Through earning the respect of peoples, institutions, governments and regional associations, the World Bank would gain an unwavering trust and support that would certainly aid its general mission. Whether this shall happen or not is for the future to reveal.
Financing for Green Sustainable Development
Green sustainable development has been on multiple discussions channels. Talks, seminars, workshops, you name it. However, financing it has not been thoroughly discussed. How do we finance sustainable green development? Is it profitable for companies who do so? Is the rate of return high enough to cover the cost of investing in green technologies?
No doubt, green sustainable technology is an expensive technology with no clear ROI. Venturing into green technologies may be a blind-man guided only by a voice in his head. Yes, green sustainable technology yields a significant Marginal Social Benefit (MSB). But often, MSB is non-quantifiable.
Leading this social-technology movement, Jeffrey Sachs, with the support of foundations such as the Jeffrey Cheah Institute, established the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) centre in the backdrop of academics – Sunway University.
The aim is to directly address the issues for SDGs and to ensure the goal set in the Paris Climate Agreement is able to be achieved successfully.
Now, as mentioned, private firms are both afraid and pessimistic about green sustainable development. Many do not see the outcome of this initiative and are not concerned about the environment. The technology is costly, and some firms are even struggling to break-even at their current costs. Lack of momentum from firms involved in similar industries and lack of financial support has made venturing into green technology unattractive.
On 14th of January 2018, pioneers and advocates from across the globe were invited to join a workshop at Sunway University. The idea was to bring together a group of academics, from the Asian Development Bank Institute to representatives from New Zealand and Austria, to discuss how to finance green sustainable developments. It attracted a number of firms involved or who wanted to be involved in this movement.
Financing models such as the SIB model and the Yozma model were introduced by Dr Hee Jin Noh. Papers on the theoretical relationships between a firm, a bank, and households were presented by Dr Maria Teresa Punzi. And the outcome of these series of workshops will be a book, which aims to provide a better insight and guideline for green financing, written by Dr Hee.
Also presented was a case study, comparing different countries. Associate Professor Ivan Diaz-Rainey had made comparisons on some successful countries, looking at European countries versus New Zealand and Australia. In the case study, countries were compared, and recommendations were made on how to make green financing successful. Though the definition and KPIs of a successful green development country are still vague, countries from Europe are exemplary on the ‘theory to practice’ phase.
While there is a significant increase in awareness and wanting to be involved by private firms, it needs to be supported by the government more. Regulators need to provide sufficient information to assist private firms venturing into green technology or green development. A healthy government support will increase the chance of a firm venturing into green development being successful. And these are the baby steps needed in order for transformation at city-scale or nationwide-scale.
Smart Cities Take Off
Big tech deals took off in 2017 as big tech firms strived to make smart cities a reality.
Editor’s Remarks: In 2017, 35 agreements were reached between various cities around the world and big tech companies – a huge increase from the eight that were agreed in 2016. Alphabet has launched a project to develop a miniature smart city in 12 acres of land it purchased in Toronto. Meanwhile, Alibaba is leveraging digital infrastructure in Macau, where its smart transport systems will hopefully improve efficiency for the municipal government. Saudi Arabia has also announced a plan to build a new city, to be named NEOM, which will rely fully on renewable energy as well as self-driving vehicles and drones.
Read more on Big Tech:
Bayeux Tapestry on Loan
Emmanuel Macron has offered to loan the famous tapestry to the UK in an effort to improve relations.
Editor’s Remarks: The offer is expected to be announced this Thursday, when Macron will meet UK officials at the Anglo-French summit at Sandhurst. The Bayeux Tapestry was commission by William the Conquerer’s brother to celebrate his 1066 conquest of England and depicts the Norman king defeating the Anglo-Saxon ruler King Harold. Although it was made in England, the piece – which measures about 35 square metres – has remained in France for the past 940 years. At the upcoming summit, Macron is also expected to petition the UK to join his combined European military initiative – a move many expect Britain’s new defence secretary Gavin Williamson to push back on.
Read more on Europe:
More on Finance
Bitcoin’s Value Propositions: Do They Actually Make Sense?
The price of bitcoin has increased over 1000% this year to date, a statistic that most probably makes holders of...
The Psychology Behind Saving
The idea that the poor do not save enough money just because they are simply “too poor to save” is...
Litecoin: Bitcoin’s Next Big Rival?
Many investors getting involved in the cryptocurrency market right now are chasing short-term momentum. People hear stories of how $500...
Cryptocurrencies3 days ago
Ripple and MoneyGram: A Proof of Concept for the Use of XRP?
Cryptocurrencies2 days ago
XRP, NEO, Monero, IOTA: Can One of the New Kids on the Block Dislodge Bitcoin?
Cryptocurrencies4 days ago
Cryptocurrencies: The Next Dot-Com Bubble?
Europe1 day ago
Silvio Berlusconi: Why Italy and Europe May Need Him
Cryptocurrencies2 days ago
ICOs: The New Gold Rush
Cryptocurrencies2 days ago
Bitcoin Bubble: Cryptocurrency Values are Plunging
Americas3 days ago
US Healthcare: Income Disparity and the ‘$1trn Toll’
Cryptocurrencies3 days ago
Blockchain: Could It Improve the Quality of Financial Reporting?