FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2026634857> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2026634857 endingPage "1316" @default.
• W2026634857 startingPage "1313" @default.
• W2026634857 abstract "Together with its World Development Report, the World Bank’s AnnuaI Report is among the most authoritative statements in print of the thinking behind World Bank action. The present author has previously critically commented on some of the analysis in the World Development Report 1987, specifically on its alleged “proof” that outward orientation works;’ others also have been critical on the same or different matters. The Annual Report, presumably written more by the World Bank’s operational staff than by the research department responsible for the 1987 World Development Report, avoids the strident neoliberal battle cries of the latter. Instead it gives emphasis from the very beginning to social weifare concerns, both in its organization and contents. All the same, it will regretfully be argued here that as a proclamation of the “human face” of the World Bank, it is not particularly impressive or convincing. The 1987 Annual Report lists five priorities. Three of these relate directly to human-face concerns, I.e., the struggle against poverty; adjustment and growth and debt rescheduling; and women’s concerns in the developing world and the development process. A fourth priority listed, i.e., for the Bank to be a “responsive institution, quick to adjust to new needs and to adapt its strength to new challenges,” may perhaps also be taken as a reference to human-face pressures. Even the remaining fifth priority relating to the function of the Bank as a “steady source of project lending,” immediately adds “especially in advancing agriculture beyond subsistence levels”; this presumably indicates a priority concentration on poorer small farmers (which the Bank claims to have had since 1975). Thus on the surface these five priorities would seem to indicate sensitivity to human-face pressures and a desire to accommodate these pressures, and certainly a desire to show awareness of welfare concerns. So far so good, from the point of view of human-face advocates: they can credit themselves with having impressed their concerns on the Bank sufficiently to make it anxious to take note of these concerns. The Bank itself acknowledges that its welfare concerns are to some extent of more recent origin. The opening section on the “Struggle Against Poverty” (pp. 15-16) presents a revealing brief history of the ups and downs in the degree of Bank concern about poverty since the end of the 1960s. This period is divided into three phases: (1) In the 1970s the Bank “took the lead in a global effort to lessen the pervasiveness of poverty in the developing countries.” This leading role of the Bank in poverty concern is exphcitly stated to have expressed itself not only in the distribution of lending between different sectors but also in introducing poverty orientation into all Bank operations “to ensure that the poor were a significant proportion of beneficiaries.” One may assume that the reference here is to the McNamara period, to Redistribution with Growth, and to basic-needs strategies. (2) The next phase of the 1980s is described as one when priority “shifted” to emphasize adjustment to restore or maintain growth. This “shift” is mainly attributed to the developing countries rather than the Bank, although it is admitted that it was “often with encouragement from the Bank.” The impression given that the main initiative for such a shift came from the developing countries rather than the Bank is a clearly debatable matter. (3) The third phase is described as now begin-" @default.
• W2026634857 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2026634857 creator A5015919714 @default.
• W2026634857 date "1989-08-01" @default.
• W2026634857 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2026634857 title "The World Bank: Human face or facelift? Some comments in the light of the World Bank's annual report" @default.
• W2026634857 cites W1522470876 @default.
• W2026634857 cites W1940052852 @default.
• W2026634857 cites W2183941487 @default.
• W2026634857 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(89)90241-6" @default.
• W2026634857 hasPublicationYear "1989" @default.
• W2026634857 type Work @default.
• W2026634857 sameAs 2026634857 @default.
• W2026634857 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2026634857 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2026634857 hasAuthorship W2026634857A5015919714 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConcept C2779304628 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConceptScore W2026634857C144024400 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConceptScore W2026634857C144133560 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConceptScore W2026634857C162324750 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConceptScore W2026634857C17744445 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConceptScore W2026634857C2779304628 @default.
• W2026634857 hasConceptScore W2026634857C36289849 @default.
• W2026634857 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W2026634857 hasLocation W20266348571 @default.
• W2026634857 hasOpenAccess W2026634857 @default.
• W2026634857 hasPrimaryLocation W20266348571 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W1502198272 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W1986173648 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W1998718379 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W2006758266 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W2017540542 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W2054677056 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W2061514737 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W2073254488 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2026634857 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2026634857 hasVolume "17" @default.
• W2026634857 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2026634857 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2026634857 magId "2026634857" @default.
• W2026634857 workType "article" @default.