724 words
The
Radical Change.
The developing
countries are minority groups within a predominantly western culture,
hence there's pressure to adopt certain ways in order to be perceived
as “developed”. Why should development be seen as
industrialization or other characteristics of the so-called developed
countries Most of the currently poor countries were doing great
before colonialism, the World Bank, and when they started to
adopt/copy ideologies like democracy and capitalism from western
countries, which the Bank requires them to have before they are given
loans (Shinebd World News). The Western countries started early on
implementing those theories that were natural for them, so by the
time the other countries started coping them, they kept lagging
behind hence being seen as undeveloped. The Bank seems like an
undercover business with long term benefits from these developing
countries that are shown how much they need money from the bank to
develop. Instead of improving themselves, these developing countries
spend almost all their money paying the accumulated loans acquired
from the Bank, some of which are interest-based. The world Bank has
done more harm than good in developing/poor countries, therefore the
solution is to close it.
Since the Bank
benefits its major contributors who are the developed and super power
countries through the strings attached, it's going to hardly close.
George,
a political scientist agrees by writing, “Debt
is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other peoples’ raw
materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms”
(George). Nevertheless, if people
are educated about the Bank's true works instead of being seen as a
savior for developing countries, they will force it to
dissolve/reduce it's power. In the meantime, the world Bank shouldn't
instill ideologies like democracy, capitalism that have worked in the
Western and current world's super powers like the US on developing
countries, because cultures are different. One of the theoretical
reasons democracy is instilled in many countries is that it brings
civilization. I totally disagree with this because the culture of
people is the base of whether or not it will work. For example in
China, there's a dictatorship, yet it's one of the top successful
economies in the world.
Money should be
earned from hard work of people particularly through traditional ways
of working. In Rwanda the society was divided into three classes that
all had a particular work that they did. The Tutsi were cattle
keepers and produced all items related to those animals, the Hutu
were farmers and grew various crops, the Twa produced pottery
equipment, all these groups exchanged commodities through barter
trade. There was also a hereditary king who controlled everything and
may nowadays be called a dictator, but Rwanda was successful then
with no debt, healthier environment and people. When ideologies like
democracy and capitalism are required of the developing countries
like Rwanda by the Bank in order to be given a loan, that's when
everything starts falling apart because the Rwandan culture isn't
built on such ideologies.
In a nutshell, if
the World Bank were not there, the developing countries would help
themselves through tough situations like calamities like volcano
eruptions, floods particularly by the culture of sharing and giving
in these countries, like they used to before the Bank was
established. However, now that the Bank hasn't yet closed, it could
only work on helping more in abrupt situations like calamities,
instead of giving loans anytime, that will in the end accumulating
into massive debt that the developing country will be paying in the
long run instead of improving itself. The developing countries should
be given an equal strength of voice in the decision making of the
World Bank as that of the super power countries that contribute
large sums of money to it. Catherine
Gwin, a Consultant in the Operations and Evaluation Department at the
World Bank, wrote “To
pass a major decision, the majority of the board members have to
agree. It is the weight of its voice, therefore, more than the
exercise of its vote that gives the United States effective power on
the board.” (Gwin).
Instead of giving a bunch of loans to the developing countries, the
Bank should also help those countries by sending elites that will
teach foreign skills that led to development, but not necessarily
forcing them to adopt them if the skills are against the values of
the local people.
Works
cited
"Shinebd
World News."Shinebd
World News.
N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.shinebd.com/world.php?type=news>.
Susan
George,
A Fate Worse Than Debt, (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), pp. 143,
187, 235.
Gwin,
Catherine.US
Relations with the World Bank 1945-1992.
Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.,
1994.
Print
