At a lecture held at the American University in Cairo, within the Rare Books Library on 13 May last year, Dr Emmanuel Mbi, the World Bank’s director for Egypt, Yemen, and Djibouti, spoke with engaging positivity about the bank’s projects and its humanitarian priorities. Adding to the credibility of this respectable gentleman was his resonant African tone, which underscored his connection to the Global South. Mr Mbi demonstrated remarkable tact and diplomacy in ‘polishing’ the image of this organisation.
During the talk, one particularly well-informed student asked him, ‘Hasn’t the time come for the World Bank to change its developmental policies, known for conditionality and structural adjustment, which academic research has shown to burden many developing countries further?’ With a confident and optimistic smile, Mr Mbi proudly replied, ‘The era of conditionality and enforced structural adjustment on developing nations is now history. Today, we follow a policy of “triggering”.’ He raised his hand as if pulling the trigger of a gun, a gesture that appeared to delight much of the audience.
This unfamiliar term in the context of development—at least to me and most of those attending the lecture—literally means pulling the trigger, or what some linguists might call ‘causation’. Mr Mbi elaborated, explaining that developing nations are now the decision-makers and drivers of their own development projects. They are no longer subject to the constraints or conditionality of the World Bank. Their role is merely to outline how they will implement their strategies and prove their capability to manage them. At that point, the bank’s role is limited to lending a helping hand.
In truth, I left the lecture pondering this intriguing new concept, which seemed to offer a glimmer of hope. Perhaps these underprivileged nations could finally achieve their dreams without external dictates from donor states or the powers controlling this colossal organisation. Yet my optimism quickly gave way to the same grim and pessimistic view I have long associated with this institution.
This perception did not change because the donor countries and international powers controlling the World Bank have not changed. Their ambitions and aims for dominance remain intact. For them, developing nations represent little more than sources of raw materials, pools of cheap labour, or guaranteed markets for their consumer goods. This is especially evident in the context of the global food crisis, where these powers push developing countries to remove subsidies on agricultural production via World Bank dictates, all while supporting their own farmers in Europe and the USA—the world’s highest subsidy rates. It seems these poorer populations are destined to remain hungry or reliant on handouts from donor organisations.
There has been, of late, a rising call to combat poverty and ensure food security for the world’s poor. Even within these organisations, there are growing voices advocating for genuine sustainable development, with locally crafted strategies that reflect the aspirations of these impoverished nations. This does offer a glimmer of hope, but it quickly fades within the enormous and shadowy tunnel of global interests that dominate decision-making processes in international organisations. From the United Nations (the glass house) to the World Trade Organisation (the magical lamp of development), and finally to the World Bank (the master of ever-renewed old terminologies), the same powers continue to pull the strings.
This article is originally published by El Borsagia in Arabic and later AI-translated by South Push.