If James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, means half of what he says then the worlds poor may have found a new friend.
At a time when industrialised nations are unashamedly widening the gap between rich and poor in their dash for economic growth, Wolfensohn is urging the opposite. In his speech to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Hong Kong this week, he described the present situation as a time bomb which could explode in our childrens faces and called on governments and development agencies to join him in a new approach to narrow the gap between rich and poor.
Cynics might be tempted to dismiss all this as a desperate attempt by the bank to reinvent itself following the success of environmental lobbies in opposing many of its giant construction projects, and the success of private capital flows to the developing world, which are now running 12 times higher than the $20-billion the bank lends each year.
There is a kernel of truth in this but there does seem to have been a genuine change of heart at the bank, which is making the reduction of poverty into a mission statement even though it might not go down well with parsimonious United States Members of Congress controlling some of the purse strings.
The new buzzword is inclusion. No longer can aid be donor-driven. The bank believes that projects must be fully owned by local stakeholders to succeed. The priorities are to educate the people, ensure their health, give them voice and justice, financial systems that work and sound economic policies. Faced with increasing competition from the private sector, the bank is making a special virtue of its status as a knowledge bank with worldwide networks to share its expertise.
By 2000 it hopes to have a communications system in place complete with interactive classrooms offering global access to its information bases. The bank will emphasise its anti-corruption programmes and continue decentralising its top-heavy management so that more country directors (would you believe it) will actually be located in the countries they serve rather than Washington.
Wolfensohn admits that it is impossible to reduce poverty without sustained growth and is surprisingly upbeat about the economic prospects. Developing countries grew by 5,6% last year, the fastest rate for 20 years, which he predicts is the prelude to 10 years of strong growth. If the bank can help to make that growth more inclusive then it will rightly be praised.
The role model is East Asia. It manages much fairer growth than the West, with China as its role model. The bank argues that
200-million Chinese people have been lifted out of absolute poverty during the past generation and illiteracy has fallen from 33% to less than 10%.
We often hear about what the East can learn from the West but seldom the other way round. Maybe Wolfensohns organisation should become a listening bank as well.
Athletics needs an inquiry too
The Minister of Sport and Recreation, Steve Tshwete, is to be congratulated for his decision to take on King Louis Luyt, with the announcement this week of a commission of inquiry to investigate the administration of rugby.
Sport has become such a central part of modern society it is intolerable that a national code should become one mans personal fiefdom. Whether the Luyt family is guilty of maladministration where rugby is concerned we of course leave to Judge Jules Browde to discover. But, as Tshwete said when he announced the inquiry, the South African Rugby Football Union (Sarfu) could not be allowed to keep operating under a cloud of suspicion.
We would, however, urge the minister to be even-handed in his approach to sport by establishing a similar inquiry into the administration of athletics in South Africa. It is now a year since the Mail & Guardian exposed the outrageous attempts by Athletics South Africa (ASA) to rig races involving our Olympic 800m star, Hezekiel Sepeng.
Readers will recall that ASA under its chief, Bernard Rose tried to get the silver medalist to sign a contract giving undertakings that he would not attempt to break the South African record in the 800m event except at meetings sponsored by the oil giant Engen. They had already persuaded Sepengs chief domestic rival, Marius van Heerden, to sign a similar document. When the M&G exposed the scam, Rose attempted to have the incriminating document destroyed.
Incredibly, no action was taken against Rose. But a year later South Africa is reminded about his continued and questionable role in athletics by disclosures in Parliament this week that ASAs CEO stands to earn R6,3-million from a five-year sponsorship deal.
The parallel with the rugby controversy is obvious: one of the main bones of contention where the Luyt family is concerned has been the millions of rands reportedly earned by Louis Jnr through a similar, 10% commission on sponsorship. It can even be said in defence of the Luyt family that in contrast to Rose at least there is no evidence they have tried to rig rugby matches.
ASA, like Sarfu, cannot be allowed to keep operating under a cloud of suspicion.