World Bank's David Malpass
Image credit: World Bank Photo Collection
The World Bank is amongst one of the most relevant and significant institutions in its global role as a norm-setter, convenor, knowledge procurer and influencer on the international development and financial landscape. The institution, which aims to alleviate global poverty and improve the lives of millions, has not benefitted from the recent cloud of controversy surrounding its president, David Malpass.
Malpass’ controversial remarks concerning the impact of fossil fuels on the climate crisis haveseen the former Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in the Trump administration announce early resignation. The president of the World Bank will step down from his post in June, leaving the organisation almost a year before his term was due to end. Designed to facilitate viable financial solutions for developing nations, and responsible for overseeing billions of funding for countries impacted by poverty, climate degradation and breakdowns in essential infrastructure, it would seemingly appear oxymoronic for the World Bank’s figurehead to have contrasting views to that of modern science.
The World Bank is no stranger to controversy; it has been widely criticised, particularly for its impact on creating a fiscal climate in the Global South, whereby high levels of lending are deemed to be positive, and the promotion of short-term impact appears to override long-term debt interest. Furthermore, its structural under-representation of the low and middle-income nations it serves to support plays into the same concerns as to how, if there is under-representation and dispute over the policy it attempts to promote, this very process can be done efficiently.
Malpass' remarks have indicated a contrasting standpoint to the World Bank's take on climate policy. Having been heavily criticised for his personal views on climate policy and his direct refusal to publicly accept that burning fossil fuels has an impact on global warming, there appears to be a dichotomy. The world's largest financer on climate action, dedicating some 26 billion to the cause in 2021 alone, there is an apparent conflict of interest between the World Bank’s commitments and Malpass' refusal to offer any substantive statements about the impact of fossil fuels on ecological crises. Malpass' early departure has been marked down as a win for the fight against climate change, with leaders in environmental activism aspiring to see a greater investment in ecologic issues being a likelihood under the command of what they hope to be a more progressive president following Malpass' exit.
The public is no stranger to the avoidance tactics employed by those in leadership to deflect questions they deem unanswerable. That being said, when the very institution that the leader represents is designed for the reduction of poverty and the sustainable development of predominantly low-income nations, it becomes more difficult to ignore such sentiments. Malpass’ failure to climb off the proverbial fence not only compromises the World Bank’s values but offers a troublesome indictment as to whom the leaders are purportedly trying to aid and perpetuate global stability.
Whilst it may be argued that the views of one cannot represent an institution that approved 99 billion dollars in lending to developing and transition countries in 2021, the rhetoric is certainly problematic. If the captain is not on board, how can the World Bank succeed as much as it arguably should be doing, in its work to elevate nations afflicted by economic and resource crises, which arebeing perpetuated by climate degradation and land loss?
The World Bank identifies that supporting developing countries to mitigate the effect of fossil fuel emissions and increase the resilience they have to combat these impacts is paramount to its developmental priorities. The impacts of climate change are often gradual and require long-term frameworks to bolster protection against them. For the institution to more adequately achieve this, there must be greater synchronicity amongst its leadership. The same analysis conducted by the World Bank, which indicates the possibility of climate change having the potential to push over 130 million people into poverty by 2030, is susceptible to appearing weak and arbitrary if the figurehead of the organisation refuses to explain why he sees climate financing as necessary. While the search for a new leader continues, consistency in views will be a key factor for consideration if the World Bank is to commit itself more adequately to being ‘a core global hub for climate change action’.
Sources:
https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2019/06/what-are-the-main-criticisms-of-the-world-bank-and-the-imf/’
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/691971989/trump-is-expected-to-name-outspoken-critic-to-head-world-bank
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/07/26/getting_to_know_theworldbank#:~:text=The%20World%20Bank%20is%20an,of%20living%20of%20their%20people.
https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2019/06/what-are-the-main-criticisms-of-the-world-bank-and-the-imf/
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/09/07/world-bank-group-delivers-record-31-7-billion-in-climate-finance-in-fiscal-year-2022
