I thought that the below might be of general interest.
--Peter Grimes
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:25:28 -0700
From: Erik Leaver <leaver@swcp.com>
To: 50-years@igc.org
Subject: IN FOCUS: World Bank's Private Sector
Foreign Policy In Focus: World Bank's Private Sector Agenda
December 1998
Volume 3, Number 40
Written by Andrea Durbin, Friends of the Earth
Edited by Tom Barry (IRC) and Martha Honey (IPS)
Key Points
o The World Bank announced in its 1995 annual report that the "private
sector is now a recognized area of emphasis."
o The bank will often require a government to cut domestic spending, open
up markets for foreign investment, expand exports, and liberalize trade
policies to promote a favorable business climate for the private sector.
o The bank will acknowledge that these conditions have not delivered the
economic growth they expected and that structural adjustment can have
serious and negative impacts on the poor, women, and the environment.
In the early 1990s, the World Bank underwent a mid-life crisis. During this
period, private capital flows to emerging market economies in the
developing world increased significantly, surpassing the amount of money
available through official development assistance. These private capital
flows grew from $42 billion in 1990 to $256 billion in 1997, while official
development assistance through the World Bank and other government aid
programs declined by nearly a quarter. Through structural adjustment
lending in the 1980s and heightened support for private sector development
in the 1990s, the World Bank has contributed to this changing trend.
Consistent with U.S. political interests to promote a private sector
agenda, the World Bank has accentuated the private sector in its operations
and highlighted financial support for the private sector in its own agenda
in the last few years. Contending that one way to alleviate poverty and
improve the living standards of the poor in the developing world is to
promote private sector development, the World Bank announced in its 1995
annual report that the "private sector is now a recognized area of emphasis."
The World Bank promotes its private sector agenda in several ways. One way
is through structural adjustment lending that promotes privatization,
investment liberalization, and export-oriented growth. The bank devotes
significant resources to advise governments on how to privatize. Through
its structural adjustment lending, the bank will often require a government
to cut domestic spending, open up markets for foreign investment, expand
exports, and liberalize trade policies. All of these conditions promote a
favorable business climate for the private sector, particularly foreign
businesses investing in developing countries. The World Bank, and its
sister institution the IMF, have long been criticized by NGOs for their
rigid application of these conditionalities on governments. Albeit
reluctantly, the bank will acknowledge that these conditions have not
delivered the economic growth they expected and that structural adjustment
can have serious and negative impacts on the poor, women, and the
environment.
Beyond establishing a good business climate through structural adjustment
lending, the World Bank promotes its private sector agenda by financing
private enterprises. Two of its lesser known agencies, the International
Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
(MIGA), exclusively finance and underwrite private companies. These
agencies are very similar to the U.S. Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, and they support a similar agenda. The IFC provides project
loans to companies, makes equity investments in private projects, and
mobilizes capital in the private financial markets for the private sector.
The IFC acts as a catalyst for private investment because its participation
enhances investor confidence and attracts other financiers to a deal. In
1998, the IFC funded $2.7 billion in new investments-a record level of new
commitments-and mobilized another $2.4 billion from other private banks. In
the last five years, the IFC's lending has increased by an average of 10% a
year, while the World Bank's lending to governments has remained steady.
In 1988, the World Bank added its newest agency, MIGA, to offer political
risk insurance for private investors to cover expropriation, civil
disturbance, or currency inconvertibility. MIGA's stated purpose is to help
developing countries attract foreign investment by providing risk
insurance. Political risk insurance is in increasing demand for investment
in emerging markets, having more than doubled since 1990 and reaching $38.9
billion in 1997. Companies want to reduce their risks and losses or at
least have these losses covered.
As with the IFC, the demand for MIGA's services is increasing. In 1998,
MIGA approved 55 guarantee contracts totaling $830.9 million in coverage,
bringing the total coverage issued in the decade since its founding to $4.2
billion. This year, MIGA asked its shareholders, donor governments like the
United States and other G-7 nations, to increase their contributions. To
demonstrate its overall commitment to providing political risk insurance
for companies, the World Bank allocated $150 million of its profits to MIGA
for political risk insurance-money that could have been used for grants to
poorer countries for development.
Problems With Current U.S. Policy
Key Problems
o The World Bank's support of the private sector does not fulfill the
bank's overall mission: to alleviate poverty and promote environmentally
sustainable development.
o The World Bank promotes the interests of large, multinational
corporations over the interests of small- and medium-sized businesses.
o The World Bank's private sector agenda missed is problematic because the
bank has set lower standards for its lending to the private sector than to
governments.
One of the problems with the World Bank's support of the private sector is
that such lending does not fulfill the bank's overall mission: to alleviate
poverty and promote environmentally sustainable development. A review of
the World Bank's private sector portfolio raises serious questions about
whether or not the bank is successfully delivering on its developmental
objectives. The IFC and MIGA are largely responsive to the needs of
business rather than human needs. The bulk of their loans go to projects
that involve natural resource extraction and polluting industrial
development or that emphasize roads over mass transit and new energy
development over renewable energy and conservation. The largest IFC
investments went to the financial services sector (28%), infrastructure
such as roads and power projects (24%), and mining/oil and gas development
(15%) in 1998. In the same period, MIGA insured the manufacturing industry
(20%), infrastructure (19%), and mining/oil and gas development (17%).
An example of a typical private sector investment that underscores the
negligible development impact the World Bank proffers is a large oil
extraction project in the West African countries of Chad and Cameroon. The
sponsors for this oil project-currently under consideration for bank
funding-are three of the largest and most profitable oil companies in the
world: Exxon, Shell, and the French company, Elf. The project will open up
oil reserves in Chad and build a 600-mile-long pipeline through tropical
rainforest areas and indigenous communities to export the oil to Europe.
The World Bank argues that the developmental purpose of the project is to
increase GDP for the governments of Chad and Cameroon, minority owners in
the project. But environmental and development organizations challenge the
assumptions that oil profits benefit local populations, given the
experience of oil development in other African nations. Oil development
rarely translates into either better living conditions for local
communities or more social spending. Most of the profits go to the oil
companies and the ruling elite, where corruption problems are common.
According to Transparency International, Cameroon was rated the most
corrupt government in the world in a survey conducted in 1998. These kinds
of misguided projects are generally supported by the U.S. government.
The Chad-Cameroon pipeline project exemplifies a development agenda that
lacks clear environmental and social benefits for the local population. It
is also an example of how the World Bank promotes the interests of large,
multinational corporations over the interests of small- and medium-sized
businesses. The bank supports some of the largest Fortune 500 companies,
like Exxon, Shell, Mitsubishi, Coca-Cola, and Boeing. All of these
companies could easily raise financial support from private financial
markets rather than tap into limited development dollars.
This misallocation of funds is due to the World Bank's failure to
distinguish between general support for the private sector and a selective
strategy emphasizing investment in private companies, such as small- to
medium-sized indigenous firms supporting environmentally sustainable
projects. The latter can truly yield development gains. Domestically owned
companies are often (though not always) a better investment for
development, because they are locally owned, typically create more jobs for
local communities, and usually reinvest profits in the local community.
Not only has the World Bank's private sector agenda missed the mark in
promoting a sustainable development agenda, it is also problematic because
the bank has set lower standards for its lending to the private sector than
to governments. Until recently, the IFC and MIGA did not follow the World
Bank's extensive environmental and social policies, designed over the past
decade at the behest of NGOs and donor governments, mainly the United
States. After pressure from the U.S. government, U.S. Congress, and NGOs,
the IFC released a comprehensive set of policies that it now requires of
its corporate clients. There are still gaps in these policies, but at least
the IFC is making progress toward closing the gaps. MIGA, however, has yet
to clarify which environmental and social policies it requires of its
business clients.
Still lacking is uniformity across the World Bank's different arms on
transparency and accountability issues, which the U.S. government raises
often. The World Bank has two different information disclosure policies:
one for government borrowers and a weaker one for private clients that
borrow from the IFC. There is no disclosure policy for MIGA. Overall the
public has less information about the bank's private sector investments,
and the information is available later in the process than it is with
regard to government loans.
To ensure accountability, the World Bank established an independent
inspection panel to respond to complaints by communities directly affected
by World Bank projects. The problem is that the inspection panel only
applies to the World Bank's government lending, creating another double
standard at the bank. Congress has urged the World Bank to expand the
inspection panel to apply to the IFC and MIGA operations, but to date, no
progress has been made. The lack of an effective accountability mechanism
at the IFC and MIGA means that there are currently no checks on the kinds
of projects and companies these agencies support with development assistance.
Toward a New Foreign Policy
Key Recommendations
o The World Bank must clarify the development goals it hopes to achieve
with private sector investment and must create measurable standards by
which the developmental impact can be judged.
o The World Bank should finance private sector efforts that endorse
renewable and alternative forms of energy, sustainable agriculture, and
water supply systems that emphasize conservation first.
o The World Bank should eradicate all double standards and special
treatment for the private sector. If the private sector stands to benefit
from the use of public funds, then it should meet the same standards that
government borrowers have to follow.
If the World Bank sees the private sector as a partner and contributor to
its overall development approach, then it must clarify the development
goals it hopes to achieve with private sector investment and must create
measurable standards by which the developmental impact can be judged. Using
such a "development screen," modeled on the experience of the socially
responsible investment community, would enable the World Bank to determine
which type of projects do or do not meet its criteria. Unlike the bank's
lending program to governments, which collaborates with governments to
develop projects jointly, the bank's private arms are in large part
responding to the private sector's agenda and to corporate interests. But
what the private sector wants to do is not always consistent with the
development priorities of a country.
If the World Bank were to establish a development screen, it could screen
in projects that match a country's development priorities and screen out
projects that don't. That way, the bank could assess projects proposed by
the private sector to determine their development impact and to decide
whether they are worth financing from a developmental point of view. As the
ultimate goal is to support a private sector agenda that promotes
environmentally and socially sustainable development, the World Bank should
finance private sector efforts that endorse renewable and alternative forms
of energy, sustainable agriculture, and water supply systems that emphasize
conservation first.
When the World Bank does promote its development agenda through the private
sector, it should do so in a way that takes into account broader social and
environmental objectives. For example, in its promotion of privatization,
it should routinely incorporate an analysis of the impacts of privatization
on women, workers, the poor, and the environment. Each of these issues
should be considered and weighed equally with other issues, like expected
economic output. The goal of privatization should be broader than promoting
economic efficiency; it should include broadening distribution and access
to resources, expanding ownership, and protecting the environment. In other
words, a fundamental shift in the World Bank's own thinking and approach is
required.
The U.S. should continue to address transparency and accountability
problems at the World Bank. In this regard, Congress has tried to urge the
IFC to strengthen its information policy by including language in the
foreign assistance appropriations bill that urges the IFC to adopt the
Pelosi amendment, which requires the release of an environmental impact
assessment no later than 120 days before the World Bank makes a final
decision to finance a project. By having a minimum of 120 days deliberative
process, the public and affected communities are afforded information in a
timely manner and can provide input into the process. The bank already
complies with the Pelosi amendment in the case of government loans, but it
holds the private sector to a lower standard of information disclosure. The
U.S. should insist that the bank eliminate this double standard.
In fact, the World Bank should eradicate all double standards and special
treatment for the private sector. If the private sector stands to benefit
from the use of public funds, then it should meet the same standards that
government borrowers have to follow. Closing this gap would mean applying
the bank's environmental and social policies to the IFC and MIGA, applying
the bank's stronger information disclosure policy to these agencies, and
giving the bank's inspection panel jurisdiction to review private sector
investments. The World Bank's agenda should still be to promote the
interests of the public and, foremost, the interests of the poor.
Andrea Durbin is director of the international program at Friends of the
Earth in Washington, DC.
Sources for More Information
Organizations
Bank Information Center
733 15th Street NW, Suite 1126
Washington, DC 20005
Voice: (202) 737-7752
Fax: (202) 737-1155
Email: bicusa@igc.org
Berne Declaration
Quellenstrasse 25
Postfach 8031 Zurich
Switzerland
Voice: 41-12-716434
Fax: 41-12-726-060
Email: evb@access.ch
Bretton Woods Project
c/o Christian Aid
PO Box 100
London SE1 7RT
United Kingdom
Voice: (44-171) 523-2170
Fax: (44-171) 620-0719
Email: bwref@gn.apc.org
Center for International Environmental Law
1367 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
Voice: (202) 785-8700
Fax: (202) 785-8701
Email: cielus@igc.apc.org
Website: http://www.econet.apc.org/ciel/
Friends of the Earth-United States
1025 Vermont Avenue NW, 3rd Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Voice: (202) 783-7400
Fax: (202) 783-0444
Email: foe@foe.org
Website: http://www.foe.org
Publications
Michelle Chan-Fishel, Anatomy of a Deal: A Handbook on International
Project Finance, (Friends of the Earth, April 1996).
Andrea Durbin, How to Deal with Public Concerns in Privatization, (Friends
of the Earth for World Bank Private Sector Development Forum, September 1998).
Andrea Durbin and Michelle Chan-Fishel, Private Sector Frenzy: The Role of
the World Bank in the Growing Marketplace, (Friends of the Earth, May 1997).
Websites
World Bank
http://www.worldbank.org
International Finance Corporation
http://www.ifc.org/
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
http://www.miga.org
50 Years Is Enough
http://www.50years.org
*****************************************************************
Foreign Policy In Focus is a joint project of the Interhemipsheric Resource
Center (IRC) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). In Focus briefs
document the problems of current U.S. foreign policy and offer
recommendations for alternative policy directions that would make the United
States a more responsible global partner.
To order Foreign Policy In Focus, call (505) 842-8288 or visit
our website for ordering information at: http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org.
To subscribe to the New U.S. Foreign Policy discussion list, send
a message to: newusfp-manager@zianet.com. Inside the body of the
message write: Join newusfp [Your Email Address].
*****************************************************************
----------------------
Erik Leaver
Communications Director
Interhemispheric Resource Center
Box 4506
Albuquerque, NM 87196
Voice: 505-842-8288
Fax: 505-246-1601
Email: leaver@swcp.com
Web: http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org
http://www.zianet.com/irc1