I realized over the weekend, the same weekend that included 16 hours of Leadership and Communication training between from 2:30 Friday afternoon and 5 pm Saturday, that I've mentally checked out for the semester. This is not the fault of the training program, which was taught as well as possible for such a large class at such an inconvenient time. (In fact, that kind of public speaking training, as well as basic presentation skills, ought to be moved up to the pre-semester 1 special classes.) Nonetheless, my brain has departed for greener pastures.

Unfortunately, it's only week 11 out of about 13, not to mention reading week and two weeks of exams. While my attendance is unblemished (so far) and I've written or transcribed or quoted about eighty thousand words of class and lecture notes over the last three months, the semester is far from finished, and my groupmates in my three or four or five group assignments would probably not appreciate my permanent mental departure. So, I guess I'll just mentally check back in and get back to work.

The World Bank

Is the World Bank part of the problem or part of the solution? (Or both?)

Joel's note: When I started thinking about getting a post-graduation job, I talked to some professors and started reflecting on my options. One of my epiphanies was that, even though these multinational agencies and NGOs and such have global scope and deal with issues all over the world, they all have offices. If you work for one, you'll probably work in one of its offices. And those officies are in specific cities. If you want to work for one, you'll probably need to live in its city. Like these, in Washington D.C:

In 2006 the World Bank approved US$23.6 billion in loans. Global FDI was US$1.3 trillion, and total capitol flow was $6 trillion. (The US economy was $13 trillion that year.)

The World Bank IDA offers 40-year plus interest-free loans, in theory funded by repayments from older loans but in fact always short of funds. Accounted for $9.5 billion of the World Bank's total 2006 lending. "In contrast to previous studies we find that the US exerted a significant influence on IDA lending during the period 1993 - 2000. We demonstrate that the influence was both statistically as well as economically significant." (University of Copenhagen study)

You can't talk about the World Bank without mentioning the Washington Consensus. And here's a useful-looking Stiglitz interview:

Multinational Monitor: What was the "Washington Consensus?"
Joseph Stiglitz: It was a consensus formulated between 15th Street and 19th Street in Washington among members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the U.S. Treasury Department, and the World Bank. It argued that the keys to success in developing countries were three things: macro-stability, liberalization (lowering tariff barriers and market deregulation) and privatization. It was largely formulated out of experience with Latin America.

MM: Does it still exist as a consensus?
Stiglitz: No. There is a consensus that those precepts, while important, are neither necessary nor sufficient for successful development.

Institutional Economics is a large part of the post-Washington Consensus thinking.