3 ms·
As much as I would like to say this is a good idea, it probably isn't. Most "grants" that the world bank gives are usually as a supplement to some loan that th
by tnuc 13y ago
As much as I would like to say this is a good idea, it probably isn't.
Most "grants" that the world bank gives are usually as a supplement to some loan that they are giving to a country.
Think of it as Ford/World Bank funds a loan for a new road so they can sell cars.
The world bank gives a loan for the road, Ford sells the cars. And on the side the world bank sets up a little side thing to show statistics by training existing motor mechanics how to fix Fords by giving them money for parts/tools and minimal support. The money is given out piece meal to ensure they spend it on the right things, like Ford parts.
World bank builds the road, Ford sells the cars, some small figure is given to keep the mechanics happy and help fudge figures. The road builders are from a foreign country and get a tax break as does Ford.
Some years down the track, after the professors go home, the road falls into disrepair. The government/people owe money for the loan for the road, and the Ford/Car owners are in debt to the banks for their vehicles. Poverty cycle starts again.
The only part of the road that is kept in good shape is the road from some mine to the port/market, if at all.
The figures presented in the article look at a small part of the larger picture. The countries that "fund" the world bank benefit as they use it prop up their own industries to the detriment of the developing country.
The long term figures on most of these "aid" programs are mostly awful. Most countries would be better off accepting no aid and building what they need.
I have spent too many years working with shit like this. The world bank and the IMF are much the same.
Note: Ford is an example, please replace it with any car company.
Edit/update:
The author of the article is Chris Blattman;
He is most likely going to say great things about any project that he writes about. If you write bad things you don't get invited back to write again/get paid more money.
- yarou 13y agoUpvoted you because it's a very good analogy. The Washington Consensus and neoliberal trade theory have wrecked developing economies by at least 10-20 years. It's no surprise that the developing economies doing well right now accepted little to no aid. Reading up on structural adjustment policies give a good insight into what the consequences are of seemingly benevolent loans. It's basically like a mafiosi loan shark giving you a desperately needed loan, then threatening to break your legs because you don't have the means to pay it back, forcing you to do whatever they ask of you.
- mc-lovin 13y ago>It's basically like a mafiosi loan shark giving you a desperately needed loan, then threatening not to make any loans to you in the future because you don't have the means to pay it back, forcing you to do whatever they ask of you. Fixed that for you