The World Bank Book Review

Book Review: Systems of Survival
1
"The World Bank, inspite of its name, is a thoroughly political outfit, not a commercial enterprise" (Jacobs, 1992, p. 132).
The World Bank, created in 1944 during the Bretton Woods Conference as a way of helping the reconstruction efforts of many countries devastated by the second world war. Just like any other bank, it required collateral for the loans. Unlike most banks, however, the collateral was not material, but rather the entire economy of the country. Its very Articles of Agreement states that all of the Bank's decision must be committed to the promotion of foreign investment and international trade. Signatories to the Bank must institute reforms both in their economy and political life in order to assure repayment of loans. The belief was that democracy and capitalism was the way to go.
While these all sounds great, the problem was that the creation of the World Bank itself did not adhere to democratic processes. The US and UK dominated conversations, and so were able to push forth their agenda inspite of alternative economies being proposed by less developed nations. Afterall, the biggest lenders to the World Bank are US and UK - they were superpowers and must be followed. Needless to say, countries like Russia, China and Cuba, all socialists, had to space in the negotiations. Burdened by its own losses from the war, Russia soon fell, leaving China and Cuba to fend for themselves. Through the World Bank, the US and UK are taking over the world.
"Law of intractable systemic corruption any signifcant breach of a syndrome's integrity - usually by adopting an inappropriate function - causes some normal virtues to convert automatically to vices, and still others to bend and break for necessary expedience" (Jacobs, 2013, p.132).
In the book, the condition of the Ik illustrated how outside interventions can potentially damage a relatively stable community. It shows us the danger of development imposed by the "white man". Many indigenous peoples in the world have suffered in the same way the Ik have. Displaced from their homes and the land of their forebears, they were forced to explore new ways of surviving - to the detriment of their cultural values. From a relatively sustainable community - one that only took what it needed from the environment - indigenous peoples were forced to learn to use and create money. World values have changed. Whereas in the past, resources were abundant, because the community shared resources, today, there isn't enough to go around because individuals "owned" resources. Moreover, governments have been trapped in the belief that if they wanted to eradicate poverty and bring prosperity to their constituents, they must compromise. The issue has become development vs. environmental preservation. But then again, none of our leaders stop to realize the value of indigenous knowledge systems and discover the real meaning of sustainability.
That's what guardians taking territory by military conquest have often done...Invested in the prowess for taking the territory, or borrowed to pay for the campaign, then the conquered territory paid in plunder, tribute, or natural resources for its own seizure. (Jacobs, 1992, p. 142)
For me, this last quote drives home the contradiction in our way of thinking. While we search for sustainability in our own governments and economies, we send other countries into despair. While we strive to achive the American dream, the good life, mothers lose their children to war, communities lose their home. What kind of development are we espousing? What kind of people are we? Who gave us the right to exploit others for our own benefit? The worst part of it all is that while we destroy the cultures and communities, our government pretend that we are helping. It is humiliating, and I for one, am baffled how we can sleep at night knowing that the comforts we have achieved have compromised the future of other countries.
2
For example, two months after the United States was obliged to comply with an Uzbek government demand that the US should withdraw its military forces in the country, the bank announced in March 2006 that new loan proposals for Uzbekistan were suspended, ostensibly for reasons of corruption in bank projects. The bank now does have a more sensible corruption agenda, which board and staff have endorsed. But it will take some time to recover...