Hi, getting visibility among core literary public is benchmark
of publishing success and this message is part of an aggressive online campaign
for the promotion and visibility of my two books [1] Political Internet and [2] Intimate Speakers among core reading public in
online space.
It will be really helpful if you are able
to help me forward, share, tweet, post, or tag this message or parts of this
message among potential
beneficiaries of the ideas in the books in your network, your friend’s
network or their networks?
Or anyone should according to you
benefit if they work broadly on anything related to social media, Internet,
society, politics, cyber sexuality, Internet pornography, intimacies,
women and online misogyny, introverts, underprivileged people, Diaspora,
cyberspace, Internet in education, International relations, digital politics,
social media and state, public sphere, civil society, social capital,
contentious politics and so on.
Buy it on Amazon:
Preview on Google Play:
Preview on Google Books:
Preview on Kindle:
Publisher Website:
2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens
Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017).
Buy it on Amazon:
Flipkart:
Blog Review:
goodreadsreviews:
Contact the author
Facebook: https://www.facebook
Twitter: https://twitter.com/b
Blogger: http://bijugayu.blogs
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin
WordPress: https://bijugayu.wo
Tumblr: http://bijugayu.tumblr
Google +: https://plus.google.com/102
Twitter: https://twitter.com/b
Blogger: http://bijugayu.blogs
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin
WordPress: https://bijugayu.wo
Tumblr: http://bijugayu.tumblr
Google +: https://plus.google.com/102
Biju
P R
Author,
Teacher, Blogger
Assistant
Professor of Political Science
Government
Brennen College
Thalassery
Kerala,
India
My Books
1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social Media,
(Routledge 2017), Amazon https://www.amazon.in/
2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017)
Amazon: http://www.amazon.in/dp/
1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social Media,
(Routledge 2017), Amazon https://www.amazon.in/
2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017)
Amazon: http://www.amazon.in/dp/
Criticism of the World Bank
encompasses a whole range of issues but they generally centre on concern about
the approaches adopted by the World Bank in formulating their policies, and the
way they are governed. This includes the social and economic impact these
policies have on the population of countries who avail themselves of financial
assistance from these two institutions, and accountability for these impacts.
Critics of the World Bank are
concerned about the ‘conditionalities’ imposed on borrower countries. The World
Bank often attach loan conditionalities based on what is termed the ‘Washington
Consensus’, focusing on liberalisation—of trade, investment and the financial
sector—, deregulation and privatisation of nationalised industries. Often the
conditionalities are attached without due regard for the borrower countries’
individual circumstances and the prescriptive recommendations by the World Bank
to resolve the economic problems within the countries.
With the World Bank, there are
concerns about the types of development projects funded. Many infrastructure
projects financed by the World Bank Group have social and environmental
implications for the populations in the affected areas and criticism has
centred on the ethical issues of funding such projects. For example, World
Bank-funded construction of hydroelectric dams in various countries has
resulted in the displacement of indigenous peoples of the area.
The World Bank’s role in the global
climate change finance architecture has also caused much controversy. Civil
society groups see the Bank as unfit for a role in climate finance because of
the conditionalities and advisory services usually attached to its loans. The
Bank’s undemocratic governance structure – which is dominated by industrialised
countries – its privileging of the private sector and the controversy over the
performance of World Bank-housed Climate Investment Funds have also been
subject to criticism in debates around this issue. Moreover, the Bank’s role as
a central player in climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts is in
direct conflict with its carbon-intensive lending portfolio and continuing
financial support for heavily polluting industries, which includes coal power.
There are also concerns that the
World Bank working in partnership with the private sector may undermine the
role of the state as the primary provider of essential goods and services, such
as healthcare and education, resulting in the shortfall of such services in
countries badly in need of them. As an increasing shift from public to private
funding in development finance has been observed recently, the Bank’s private
sector lending arm – the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – has also
been criticised for its business model, the increasing use of financial
intermediaries such as private equity funds and funding of companies associated
with tax havens.
Critics of the World Bank are also
apprehensive about the role of the Bretton Woods institutions in shaping the
development discourse through their research, training and publishing
activities. As the World Bank are regarded as experts in the field of financial
regulation and economic development, their views and prescriptions may
undermine or eliminate alternative perspectives on development.
There are also criticisms against the World
Bank governance structures which are dominated by industrialised countries.
Decisions are made and policies implemented by leading industrialised
countries—the G7—because they represent the largest donors without much
consultation with poor and developing countries.
Over the past three decades,
the World Bank has radically re-shaped the policies of developing countries. ‘Conditionality’
– stipulating policy changes governments must make in order to receive loans
and unlock aid from other donors – has been instrumental in bringing about this
change.
But the practice of conditionality
has also attracted a welter of criticism; for closing down policy space, for failing
to foster sustainable reform and for its negative impact on poverty. Clumsily executed
and highly controversial reforms in areas such as privatisation and trade
liberalisation have often carried a heavy social and economic cost for the
poorest and most vulnerable, and severely undermined the credibility of the
Bank in many developing countries.
There are three main problems
with the Bank’s current use of economic policy conditionality. Firstly, it
tends to take key decisions away from sovereign governments and put them in the
hands of unelected World Bank officials. This can serve to undermine the
development of domestic accountability processes in developing countries.
Secondly, the use of conditionality to promote policy changes has proved to be
an ineffective, clumsy and politically unsustainable method of bringing about
change. Thirdly, some policies promoted by the World Bank have failed to reduce
poverty, or have even made things worse. Clumsily designed and ill-timed
policies to promote the liberalisation of trade, the privatisation of public services
and the deregulation of economies have sometimes sparked political crises
serious enough to derail a government’s commitment to a wider reform programme
A number of
former World Bank employees, including former chief economist Joseph Stiglitz,
publicly criticize both the World Bank and the IMF. Their voices add
credibility and an "insider" perspective to worldwide opposition to
the destructive orthodoxies of the two institutions. In response, the Bank has
attempted to censor several leading employees and contractors who deviated from
neoliberal models of growth, trade liberalization, and privatization.
No comments:
Post a Comment