Tom,
How much instability is needed to remove a dinosaur... varies, obviously, from country to country. I do think that when money gets poured into a country with a clearly dysfunctional government "to maintain stability", people in that country are likely to perceive it as an attempt to prop up that dysfunctional government (in many cases they're right). Then when the government falls - and they always do - the government that replaces it usually comes in with a very hostile view toward the international forces that supported the previous government. On the other hand, it is difficult to actively oppose a government in force. Tough line to walk, but there is obviously a point where support must be withdrawn, even if stability is at stake. Not an easy thing to do at a time when instability causes so much panic, but these are precisely the times when change - which often comes with instability - is occurring.
I'm musing out loud here, and maybe my only point is that we shouldn't necessarily assume that instability and change are negative or threatening things. Change turns violent when people try to hold back the clock by force. Sometimes you have to let it happen.
I'm not convinced that the World Bank is very effective at what it tries to do. It is instructive to visit some of these project sites, look at the work on the ground, and compare it to the figures that are flying around: a lot of the time they really don't add up. One hell of a lot of money is pulled off above the line, and it's not only going to corrupt officials and fictitious contractors. I've long thought that the huge amounts paid to consultants are due for some serious review. If the cozy relationships between consultants and multilateral aid agencies existed in a third world government, it would be immediately denounced as corrupt.
And as always, the taxpayers of the world end up footing the bill, whether or not the project does anyone any good.
If this post has no logical conclusion, it's because I haven't thought of it yet. <g>
Steve |
