When James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, made a two-day visit to New Delhi in mid-November, he was not just one of the thousands of global bankers flying to India, charmed by the countrys great, though mostly unachieved, economic potential, writes India Today.
Wolfensohn is presiding over institutions that are betting 3 billion US dollar every year on India. The World Bank group has cumulatively lent over 59 billion dollar to India in 462 projects. In the nine years that Wolfensohn has been the president, he has made poverty alleviation the focus of the Banks efforts. This is of key relevance to India, which has over 30 percent (about 250 million) of the worlds poor.
In an interview with the daily, Wolfensohn argues that when evaluating Indias economic performance, one cannot consider a single India, but instead at least two:
– One is the “Go-Go” India that is growing at 8 percent a year. The other is mostly rural India which is growing at 2-3 percent or less. This India has 600.000 villages, in which some 700 million very diverse people live.
– I have traveled in the country enough to know that the concerns of villages in Rajasthan will be very different from the issues in the villages of Tamil Nadu. Anybody who makes a general remark about India, probably does not know India.
– I am very optimistic about India. You have a good leadership in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The size of Indias international trade has grown from 22 to 32 percent of GDP in 10 years. Its economic base has broadened from industry to services. It is expanding its market, possibly even into China, Mr. Wolfensohn stated.
The daily goes on to ask Wolfensohn how the changes in India in governments, both at the Center and in states, have affected the Banks lending efforts:
– The recent change of government in Delhi has made some difference. The earlier government (NDA) was keen that we engage more closely with states and reward the more competitive states. We were not entirely comfortable in limiting ourselves like that, even though it was a ration strategy because the Central government could deal with other (laggard) states.
– But the UPA Government is interested in the World Banks dealing with national issues, issues that cover all states. For instance, a water program that we are considering is a national program,” Wolfensohn explains.
The World Bank President also answers affirmatively to the question of whether it was correct that for the past few years, in dealing with states, the World Bank tilted toward their performance rather than level of poverty.
But when asked if the bank would be less particular about performance now he replies: – No. I think you can perform at different levels. Some poor states of India, say Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, have some very good projects going. But they may not be performing as well as some other states. The importance of performance has not been diminished, rather the approach has been broadened.
– When we take up water management, for instance, we will not be looking at one or two states only. India has many irrigation projects that are not complete and the Government is very keen to complete them. So instead of taking a state-wise approach we would be taking, say, an irrigation-system approach which is nation wide, he said.
Wolfensohn further says that the World Bank has “a high degree of confidence in India.
– After all, we have done 59 billion US dollar worth of lending in more than 400 projects in this country. If we are the World Bank we cannot ignore the country that has one-sixth of the world population. Our experience has been varied. It has varied with locations and with ministers. But on balance, we have been very successful here, whether it was partnering with the Green Revolution or in being with the technology revolution.
Asked what he would say to the people in India, including some opinion makers, who consider the World Bank to be an arm of the US administration, Wolfensohn replied:
– I would say it is nonsense. During the Cold War the World Bank was much more politically influenced. In the past 10 years that has not been the case. See it objectively. Much of our decision making has moved out of Washington DC and takes place in the field.
– We have changed our methods. We listen to our clients now. We are not policemen. We have become service organization. We learn from our clients, not just profess them. In the past decade, we have become more of a partner than ever before. These changes are evident to the people who follow us. But there still are some people in their 40s, 50s and 60s who think of a Bank that does not exist any longer.”
– If you enter the World Bank office in Washington DC you will see written on the left wall: “The purpose of the World Bank is to fight poverty with passion”.
– I had it put up there because I wanted something that unites us as an institution. We recently did a poll among the staff and one question asked was if they were happy working with the Bank. Ninety-three per cent said yes. Some 87 percent said they agreed with the direction the Bank was taking.
– We are very unified now and the cohesive factor is poverty. Otherwise, we might all go work with City Bank, Mr. Wolfensohn concluded.
Kilde: www.worldbank.org
