Equal opportunity à la Wolfowitz

„What we are trying to do with the Gender Action Plan is to develop more concrete ways in which this basic idea that the whole of society benefits when everybody has equal access can be incorporated in more and more of the programmes that we actually do.“
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, Oslo, October 2006.

Paul Wolfowitz is right to say that gender equality is not a women’s issue, but a development issue. The fact that women can play an economically important role is obvious, but that they need to do so for growth to dynamically reduce poverty is an insight of key significance.

In many poor countries, gender equality and women’s rights are considered mere quirks of rich countries or, worse, an expression of Western decadence. Where such thinking prevails, calls for universal human rights mostly fall on deaf ears. Attitudes with deep cultural roots are hard to change – as women’s liberation movements in Western Europe and North America found out too. In recent decades, they certainly achieved a lot – but not true gender equality. Perhaps a lesson in economics will help. Empirical evidence shows that, where women are given an economic chance, they often make use of it, and then contribute to growth and prosperity in general.

A fair distribution of opportunities is the base for healthy competition, which makes economies and societies thrive. Therefore, Wolfowitz was right to stress the fight against corruption early on in his term. However, since it emerged in mid-April that he is not above favouritism himself, his credibility looks dented – to put it mildly.

Before Wolfowitz was appointed World Bank President, he was already romantically involved with a Bank employee, Shaha Riza. To avoid possible conflicts of interest, the World Bank Ethics Committee suggested that Ms. Riza be seconded to another agency. She could also be promoted, it was said, since the posting might conceivably harm her career prospects within the Bank. Next, Wolfowitz personally sweetened the pill, granting his lover a 45 % pay rise to around $ 190 000. Her salary rises by eight percent annually. Even though she now takes orders from the US State Department, the World Bank is still paying her.

Wolfowitz’s conduct may seem pardonable at a human level, but politically it is totally unacceptable. The World Bank’s president used his position to bestow extraordinary benefits on someone close to him. That kind of misconduct is considered typical of cronyist regimes in poor countries. Moreover, it seems odd, to say the least, that the Bush Administration, which regularly accuses multilateral institutions of mismanagement, should employ a specialist on an exorbitant salary at the expense of the international community. A superpower should be able to pay its staff.

The fact that some poor-country governments rally around Wolfowitz probably tells us more about them than about him. Some cabinet members seem happier dealing with a discredited World Bank chief, than with one whose anti-corruption rhetoric still bites. As D+C was going to print, it seemed Wolfowitz might stay on. Obviously, however, no one needs to pay heed to his lectures any more. That is a pity, as much of what he says merits attention – even though the visions he had for Iraq during his stint at the Pentagon proved horribly wrong. What Wolfowitz says about promoting women, for example, makes sense – regardless of which woman he chose to promote personally.