More stories

  • in

    Joe Biden nominates former Mastercard boss Ajay Banga to lead World Bank

    Joe Biden nominates former Mastercard boss Ajay Banga to lead World BankUS president puts forward choice to oversee new focus on climate crisis after resignation of Trump appointee David MalpassJoe Biden has nominated a former boss of Mastercard with decades of experience on Wall Street to lead the World Bank and oversee a shake-up at the development organisation to shift its focus to the climate crisis.The US president’s choice of Ajay Banga, an American citizen born in India, comes a week after David Malpass, a Donald Trump appointee, quit the role.The World Bank’s governing body is expected to make a decision in May, but the US is the Washington-based organisation’s largest shareholder and has traditionally been allowed to nominate without challenge its preferred candidate for the post.Malpass, who is due to step down on 30 June, was nominated by Trump in February 2019 and took up the post officially that April. He is known to have lost the confidence of Biden’s head of the US Treasury, Janet Yellen, who with other shareholders wanted to expand the bank’s development remit to include the climate crisis and other global challenges.Malpass upset the Biden administration when he appeared to question the extent to which humans had contributed to global heating.World Bank chief resigns after climate stance misstepRead moreBiden said he wanted Banga to use his decades of experience on Wall Street to support private-sector lending to countries in the developing world.“Ajay is uniquely equipped to lead the World Bank at this critical moment in history. He has spent more than three decades building and managing successful, global companies that create jobs and bring investment to developing economies, and guiding organisations through periods of fundamental change,” the president said.“He has a proven track record managing people and systems, and partnering with global leaders around the world to deliver results,” he added.Anti-poverty groups are expected to question Banga’s commitment to fighting the climate crisis using private sector funds. Several countries have defaulted on foreign loans, in effect declaring themselves bankrupt, and are locked in negotiations with banks and other private-sector lenders to reduce their debts.The World Bank said the first criterion for a future president was “a proven track record of leadership and accomplishment, particularly in development”.Banga has recently joined several bodies as a climate adviser. He became vice-chairman of General Atlantic’s climate-focused fund, BeyondNetZero, at its inception in 2021.Raised in India, Banga is expected to appeal to many developing world leaders as an executive bringing financial acumen to the job and a strong relationship to the Biden administration.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe World Bank’s board has rebutted previous criticism of its commitment to reducing global heating, saying that climate finance doubled under Malpass from $14bn (£12bn) in 2019 to $32bn last year.John Kerry, Biden’s climate envoy, said Banga was “the right choice to take on the responsibilities of the World Bank at this critical moment”.He said it would allow the World Bank to “mobilise capital to power the green transition”.Manish Bapna, chief executive of the research organisation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Banga would need to be a “transformative leader with a clear vision for ambitious climate action” who must prevent the world’s most vulnerable people from being “forced to pay a price they can’t afford for a crisis they didn’t cause”.TopicsWorld BankGlobal economyJoe BidenBiden administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump pick for World Bank chief makes early exit after climate stance misstep

    Trump pick for World Bank chief makes early exit after climate stance misstepDavid Malpass’ decision comes after running afoul of White House for failing to say whether he accepts global warming consensus World Bank president David Malpass on Wednesday said he would leave his post by the end of June, months after running afoul of the White House for failing to say whether he accepts the scientific consensus on global warming.Malpass, appointed by Donald Trump, will vacate the helm of the multilateral development bank, which provides billions of dollars a year in funding for developing economies, with less than a year remaining in a five-year term. He offered no specific reason for the move, saying in a statement, “after a good deal of thought, I’ve decided to pursue new challenges”.Treasury secretary Janet Yellen thanked Malpass for his service in a statement, saying: “The world has benefited from his strong support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, his vital work to assist the Afghan people, and his commitment to helping low-income countries achieve debt sustainability through debt reduction.”Yellen said the United States would soon nominate a replacement for Malpass and looked forward to the bank’s board undertaking a “transparent, merit-based and swift nomination process for the next World Bank president”.By long-standing tradition, the US government selects the head of the World Bank, while European leaders choose the leader of its larger partner, the International Monetary Fund (IMF).Pressure to shake up the leadership of the World Bank to pave the way for a new president who would reform the bank to more aggressively respond to climate change has been building for over two years from the United Nations, other world leaders and environmental groups.In November 2021, special adviser to the UN secretary-general on climate change Selwin Hart called out the World Bank for “fiddling while the developing world burns” and said that the institution has been an “ongoing underperformer” on climate action.Pressure on Malpass was reignited last September when the World Bank chief fumbled answering a question about whether he believed in the scientific consensus around climate change, which drew condemnation from the White House.In November, special envoy on climate change John Kerry said he wants to work with Germany to come up with a strategy by the next World Bank Group meetings in April 2022 to “enlarge the capacity of the bank” to put more money into circulation and help countries deal with climate change.More recently, Yellen has launched a major push to reform the way the World Bank operates to ensure broader lending to combat climate change and other global challenges.Malpass took up the World Bank helm in April 2019 after serving as the top official for international affairs at US treasury in the Trump administration. In 2022, the World Bank committed more than $104bn to projects around the globe, according to the bank’s annual report.A source familiar with his thinking said Malpass had informed Yellen of his decision on Tuesday.The end of the fiscal year at the end of June was a natural time to step aside, the source said. The World Bank’s governors are expected to approve the bank’s roadmap for reforms with only minor changes at the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank set for mid-April.Still, World Bank sources said they were surprised by his decision to step down before the joint meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Morocco in October.TopicsWorld BankEconomicsGlobal economyUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Surprised that Ivanka was almost head of the World Bank? You shouldn’t be | Arwa Mahdawi

    OpinionIvanka TrumpSurprised that Ivanka Trump was almost head of the World Bank? You shouldn’t beArwa MahdawiDonald Trump wanting his daughter to have the top job at the World Bank is no great surprise. What intrigues me is the thought of Steven Mnuchin blocking it Tue 12 Oct 2021 11.34 EDTLast modified on Tue 12 Oct 2021 14.01 EDTIt’s no secret that Donald Trump has something of a soft spot for his eldest daughter, Ivanka. He’s constantly tooting her horn and gushing over her talents. Not only does Ivanka have a “very nice figure”, Trump has boasted, but “she’s very good with numbers”. She’s so good at all that numbers stuff that the former president even considered her for the top job at the World Bank in 2019. And that wasn’t just a fleeting fantasy, either; according to a recent report by the Intercept, Ivanka’s nomination for World Bank president “came incredibly close to happening”. The reason it didn’t is that Trump’s treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, intervened. Which, by the way is a rather different story from the one Ivanka tells. The former first daughter has said she passed on the job because she was very happy with the high-powered White House position she’d appointed herself to.I can’t say I’m surprised that Ivanka was a stone’s throw away from a(nother) prestigious job she was laughably unqualified for. What does intrigue me is why Mnuchin might have blocked her nomination. Trump has a knack of surrounding himself with sycophants who do his bidding; what could have prompted Mnuchin to break ranks? Could it possibly be that the guy finds brazen nepotism distasteful? Alas, it seems unlikely, considering he’s a product of it himself. Mnuchin’s first job out of Yale was at Goldman Sachs, where his dad just happened to be a general partner. According to a New York magazine profile, Mnuchin’s colleagues at Goldman Sachs didn’t consider him “especially book smart”, but that didn’t stop him becoming partner himself. The same profile notes that his elevation to partner came at the expense of an African American trader from a working-class background who struck one colleague as being “much smarter than Steven” and having “accomplished a lot more”. I don’t know how fair that profile is, but I’d bet both my kidneys that Mnuchin isn’t someone who stays awake at night fretting about nepotism.So perhaps Mnuchin was afraid Ivanka’s appointment might be unethical or make the US look ridiculous? Again, these theories seem unlikely. Mnuchin and his (third) wife, the Scottish actor Louise Linton, don’t seem particularly bothered by ethics or looking ridiculous. Mnuchin, after all, is nicknamed the “foreclosure king” because he made a ton of money evicting elderly people from their homes. Linton, meanwhile, is notorious for having written a “white saviour” memoir full of dubious claims. The pair haven’t exactly kept a low profile since getting together. Remember when the lovebirds did a very weird supervillain-style photoshoot with a sheet of new dollar bills? Not exactly something someone concerned about optics might do. Then there was the time they took a government plane to see a solar eclipse in Kentucky. Linton posted the trip on Instagram and hashtagged all the designer labels she was wearing: “#rolandmouret pants”, “#tomford sunnies”, “#hermesscarf”, “#valentinorockstudheels”. The whole thing was #inverybadtaste.The pair haven’t exactly tried to tone it down since then. Linton recently made a movie called Me You Madness where she plays a “materialistic, narcissistic, self-absorbed misanthrope” who hates commercial air travel, loves high fashion and eats men for fun. It also contains spider sex. Mnuchin has been very supportive of the movie, calling the escapades of a greedy sociopath “highly entertaining”. Again, he doesn’t seem like the sort of guy who cares what other people think. Rather, he seems like the sort of guy who actively supports narcissistic blonds (Linton looks quite a bit like Ivanka) with white saviour complexes and enormous egos doing whatever the hell they like. If he blocked Ivanka’s nomination then I’ll once again wager my kidneys that it wasn’t for the common good, but it was somehow for his own good. After all, nepotism simply isn’t a problem for people like Mnuchin. It’s just the way the world works.
    Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
    TopicsIvanka TrumpOpinionDonald TrumpUS politicsWorld BankEconomicsGlobal economycommentReuse this content More

  • in

    'Opportunity is coming': Joe Biden celebrates latest jobs report – video

    Joe Biden has encouraged Americans to ‘buckle down’ as coronavirus cases rise but he was optimistic on the state of the economy and celebrated the latest jobs report.
    The US economy added 916,000 jobs last month according to the report which Biden credited to the resiliency of the American people and his administration’s new economic vision

    US politics – live updates More

  • in

    The Guardian view on China, Xinjiang and sanctions: the gloves are off | Editorial

    China’s response to criticisms of horrifying human rights violations in Xinjiang is clear and calculated. Its aims are threefold. First, the sanctions imposed upon individuals and institutions in the EU and UK are direct retaliation for those imposed upon China over its treatment of Uighurs. That does not mean they are like-for-like: the EU and UK measures targeted officials responsible for human rights abuses, while these target non-state actors – elected politicians, thinktanks, lawyers and academics – simply for criticising those abuses.Second, they seek more broadly to deter any criticism over Xinjiang, where Beijing denies any rights violations. Third, they appear to be intended to send a message to the EU, UK and others not to fall in line with the harsher US approach towards China generally. Beijing sees human rights concerns as a pretext for defending western hegemony, pointing to historic and current abuses committed by its critics. But mostly it believes it no longer needs to tolerate challenges.Alongside the sanctions, not coincidentally, has come a social media storm and consumer boycott targeting the Swedish clothing chain H&M and other fashion firms over concerns they voiced about reports of forced labour in cotton production in Xinjiang. Nationalism is a real and potent force in China (though not universal), but this outburst does not appear spontaneous: it began when the Communist Youth League picked up on an eight-month-old statement, and is being egged on by state media.China has used its economic might to punish critics before – Norway’s salmon exports slumped after dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel peace prize – and often with the desired results. But this time, it is acting far more overtly, and it is fighting on multiple fronts. Some clothing companies are already falling into line. Overall, the results are more complex. The sanctions have drastically lowered the odds of the European parliament approving the investment deal which China and the EU agreed in December, to US annoyance. Beijing may think the agreement less useful to China than it is to the EU (though many in Europe disagree). But the measures have done more to push Europe towards alignment with the US than anything Joe Biden could have offered, at a time when China is also alienating other players, notably Australia. Foreigners – who in many cases have offered more nuanced voices to counter outright China hawks – are already becoming wary of travelling there, following the detention and trial of two Canadians, essentially taken hostage following their country’s arrest (on a US extradition request) of a top Huawei executive. The sanctioning of scholars and thinktanks is likely to make them more so. Businesses, though still counting on the vast Chinese market, are very belatedly realising the risks attached to it. Those include not only the difficulty of reconciling their positions for consumers inside and outside China, but the challenges they face as the US seeks to pass legislation cracking down on goods made with forced labour, and the potential to be caught up in political skirmishes by virtue of nationality. For those beginning to have second thoughts, rethinking investments or disentangling supply chains will be the work of years or decades. But while we will continue to live in a globalised economy, there is likely to be more decoupling than people foresaw.The pandemic has solidified a growing Chinese confidence that the west is in decline, but has also shown how closely our fates are tied. There can be no solutions on the climate emergency without Beijing, and cooperation on other issues will be both possible and necessary – but extraordinarily difficult.Beijing’s delayed response to the UK sanctions suggests it did not anticipate them, perhaps unsurprising when the integrated review suggested we should somehow court trade and investment while also taking a tougher line. But the prime minister and foreign secretary have, rightly, made their support for sanctioned individuals and their concerns about gross human rights violations in Xinjiang clear. Academics and politicians, universities and other institutions, should follow their lead in backing targeted colleagues and bodies. China has made its position plain. So should democratic societies. More

  • in

    How the 'great reset' of capitalism became an anti-lockdown conspiracy | Quinn Slobodian

    At a recent anti-lockdown protest in London, thousands of people gathered to oppose what they saw as a clandestine power grab taking place under the cover of a pandemic. Some protesters carried cardboard signs bearing the name of the alleged takeover: “The great reset”. “They thought they could easily get their great reset,” one man shouted. “Little did they know! The pandemic’s a hoax!”The great reset, both the title of an airport book by the creative economy guru Richard Florida and a slogan favoured by corporate do-gooders, is also the term for a web of ideas that has become increasingly popular among the anti-lockdown right. In its most implausible version, this conspiracy imagines that a global elite is using Covid-19 as an opportunity to roll out radical policies such as forced vaccinations, digital ID cards and the renunciation of private property.Though a poor diagnosis of the causes of global events, the great reset offers a grim insight into the public mood. An unlikely source provided its initial spark. On 3 June, as the UK’s Covid death toll reached 50,000, the royal family’s YouTube account posted a video about a new sustainability drive headed by the Prince of Wales’s Sustainable Markets Initiative, in partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF). Titled #TheGreatReset, the initiative called for “fairer outcomes” and the redirection of investment towards a more “sustainable future”. It had all the slick branding one has come to expect from the WEF, with a cinematic video of ice floes and beached whales, and a sonorous monologue by Prince Charles.The initiative joined a line of similar proclamations riffing on Karl Polanyi’s 1944 urtext, The Great Transformation. In the past decade, authors and politicians have talked of the “great financialization”, the “great regression”, the “great reversal”, the “great acceleration”, the “great unraveling” and the “great uncoupling”, to name just a few. The WEF’s great reset went largely unnoticed at first, arriving at the same time as George Floyd’s death spurred Black Lives Matter protests across the world. But the idea later caught on – in a way that organisers most likely didn’t expect.Weeks after the WEF’s announcement, Justin Haskins, the editorial director of the libertarian thinktank, the Heartland Institute, sounded klaxons about the great reset on Fox Business, Fox News and Glenn Beck’s network, TheBlaze. “The rough outline of the plan is clear,” he said. “Completely destroy the global capitalist economy and reform the western world.” Yet, apart from a few isolated yelps in the rightwing echo chamber, the great reset failed to catch on as a fully fledged conspiracy theory until Joe Biden’s victory in early November, when Google Trends shows that searches for the term surged online.The most obvious spark for this growing interest was a segment on Laura Ingraham’s television show on Fox News, which averaged 3.5 million viewers in 2020. “You know the idea, ‘never let a crisis go to waste’,” said Ingraham on 13 November. “Well, with the coronavirus, that idea went global. And since last spring, powerful people began to use this pandemic as a way to force radical social and economic change across the continents.”Years after the journalist Naomi Klein first identified the “shock doctrine” of radical policies that conservatives rolled out during disasters, the right was now appropriating this narrative for its own ends.A few days later, Ingraham returned to the theme. In a clip viewed some 2.4m times, she said Biden’s “handlers” believe in “the great reset of capitalism. It’s a plan to force a more equitable distribution of global resources.” The same day, another conservative commentator, Candace Owens, tweeted: “They are using Covid to crash western economies and implement communist policies. That’s what’s going on.” And in Australia, the Spectator columnist James Delingpole was interviewed on Sky News Australia (which, like Fox News, is owned by Rupert Murdoch). “Anyone who doesn’t realise that the great reset is the biggest threat to our form of life right now hasn’t been paying attention,” he said.The great reset theory is nonsense, and will probably become a prime target for the many new research centres and initiatives studying “disinformation” that have mushroomed on university campuses since 2016. But although we may scorn the ideas of anti-lockdown protesters, we ignore the unequal reality of the pandemic at our peril. Many of the world’s tech companies and CEOs have done well from this crisis. Indeed, in the same week that many Americans lost their jobs, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, added $13bn to his fortune in just a day. With surreal realities like these, where prominent members of the 1% really do appear to have gained from the pandemic, how much of a leap is it to persuade someone that the crisis has been orchestrated deliberately so that elites can amass power?The genius of Murdoch’s hosts was giving people a place to direct their anger. With his thick German accent and outpost in the Swiss Alps, the WEF’s founder, Klaus Schwab, labelled a “charismatic German” and “dangerous Marxist leader” by Sky News Australia, was the perfect villain for this conspiracy. For rightwing pundits, the great reset was also a welcome distraction from their own complicity with power and wealth, having spent four years cheerleading a president whose major legislative achievement was a mammoth tax cut that disproportionately benefited the rich.That the WEF has inspired a conspiracy about elites is unsurprising; the organisation is best known for its annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland, when top corporate executives arrive in fleets of private jets to pay lip service to climate change. While Schwab has pronounced that “neoliberalism has had its day”, it is left to his critics to remind the WEF of its record, such as its publication of an annual “global competitiveness index” that has, since the 1970s, flogged national governments into a race to the bottom to adopt lower taxes and slash regulations.If the great reset tells us anything about political reality, it’s that corporate elites can’t win legitimacy through vacuous initiatives. People recoil, it turns out, at being treated like buggy hard drives that can be reset from above. Changing the conditions of people’s lives and the causes of political alienation will take far more than the WEF’s tone-deaf video about the opportunities of a pandemic, fronted by the royal family. It’s social movements such as Black Lives Matter and the climate strikers, not boardroom initiatives, that offer a better lesson in how to gather popular support for the transformations we need.• Quinn Slobodian is an associate professor of history at Wellesley College, Massachusetts• This article was amended on 4 December 2020 to reflect the fact that Candace Owens is not a Fox News host More

  • in

    The 'market' won't save us from climate disaster. We must rethink our system | Robert S Devine

    The massive wildfires that have been rampaging across the American west this year are not purely natural disasters. They are partly products of the unnatural disaster of climate change – “unnatural”, in that the ultimate responsibility for global warming belongs not to physics but to our economic system. Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist of the World Bank, calls climate change the “greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen”. Sadly, climate change is only one – albeit a whopper – of the countless market failures that degrade our lives.
    Though it sounds like a generic phrase, “market failure” is actually a technical term. It doesn’t refer to scams like insider trading or corporate fraud. A failure occurs when the marketplace allocates resources in a way that does not optimally deliver wellbeing. We understandably focus a lot of attention on the depredations of greedy tycoons and corporations, but many of the most consequential market failures stem from innate characteristics of our current market system.
    Many of us probably already have a gut feeling that our current market system often fails. In order to build a more sustainable, just and prosperous economy, however, it’s vital that we better comprehend the shortcomings deep in the market’s DNA. Greater awareness would reduce blind faith in the market and enable people to see the market for what it is: a tool. It can be an excellent tool when used for the right job, but relying on the market to deal with something like climate change is like trying to pound nails with a saw.
    One major inherent flaw involves communication. In an ideal version of the market, continuous indirect communication between consumers and producers leads to the best allocation of society’s resources. Consumers make their desires known by the prices they’re willing to pay, and producers convey their costs by the prices they charge.
    However, producers only communicate a narrow range of costs. For example, an oil company will account for typical expenses, like payments to its employees, and then set its prices accordingly. Consumers will receive those price signals and decide whether to buy that company’s gasoline. But markets enable businesses to scrub most social and environmental costs from these signals, which garbles communication with consumers. For instance, the price of gas doesn’t reflect the cost of the revved-up wildfires we suffer due to the additional global warming caused by burning that oil company’s gasoline. Numerous studies estimate that the true cost of gas is two to four times higher than what we pay at the pump.
    Incomplete communication misleads us consumers into buying products laden with hidden costs. Countless goods and services bear the stains of harms such as pollution, habitat destruction, floods, child labor, extinctions and disease. When we fill up at the gas station the price we are charged doesn’t tell us that our purchase increases the odds that a wildfire will burn down our community. Making such partially informed choices is like buying a house having seen only the kitchen.
    Another characteristic of the market that leads to failure is its inability to provide incentives for businesses to produce or protect public goods, such as fire departments or city parks. Most important, the market doesn’t generate the public goods sometimes known as “ecosystem services”, such as nutrient cycling, soil formation, oxygen creation and a livable climate. Many of these essential services operate in the background; like plumbing and wiring, they go unnoticed and unappreciated unless they fail.
    Take the flooding that drowned parts of coastal Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina thrashed the Gulf coast. More than 1,800 people died, cherished communities disintegrated, and the price tag swelled to more than $100bn. Much of the devastation occurred because oil and gas development had decimated the coastal marshes that previously had tamed storm surges. The protection those marshes provide is an extremely valuable ecosystem service, yet no entrepreneurs hustle to produce that protection.
    And why would they? The market doesn’t give private businesses a profit motive to produce public goods. For example, even if a company were to restore a marsh, they wouldn’t be able to sell that service because they couldn’t exclude anyone living on that coast from using that protection for free.
    Private restoration companies exist, of course, and some make a profit by rehabilitating marshes. But market forces didn’t spawn these outfits. At some point somebody recognized the value of the marshes and made a conscious choice to try to preserve or restore them. Most likely a number of somebodies made that choice and pressed their government to hire a restoration company. More broadly, environmental and social projects happen when a great many somebodies vote for candidates who support such efforts. Such purposeful collective action is the overarching solution to market failures. Instead of passively counting on supply and demand to provide everything we need, we sometimes need to exert our judgment.
    And there it is, the J-word: “judgment”. Free-enterprise disciples view most efforts to use our collective judgment to shape the economy as central planning that will foul the gears of the market. But banishing judgment about how to allocate our resources will result in a world with plenty of video game consoles and fashionable shoes and precious little biodiversity and climate stability – and, all too soon, biological poverty and climate chaos will also cripple the economy of stuff, and video game consoles and shoes will become scarce, as well.
    Citizens who scorn judgment should note that we’ve exercised some collective judgment to help guide the economy since the advent of government. The problem is that we’re not exercising it enough. In recent decades we’ve gotten out of balance and are leaning too far toward an unrestrained market even when it’s the wrong tool for the job.
    Consider your toaster. It’s loaded with hidden costs that the market doesn’t communicate and that individual consumers can’t be expected to discover. But government (well, good government that pays attention to science) has the expertise to evaluate your toaster. If we citizens decide that we want to address climate change and air pollution, then government can do our bidding by devising energy efficiency standards for our appliances.
    In fact, they did, decades ago. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, those regulations have saved more than $1tn to date and have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of the annual emissions of 800m cars. And we don’t even know the standards are there – hardly the heavy hand of government that haunts free-marketeers’ fever dreams.
    So let’s use our judgment to create an economy that better aligns with our values. Instead of surrendering our autonomy to the soulless mechanics of the market, we can freely choose to grow beyond being mere consumers and become forceful citizens.
    Robert S Devine is the author of Bush Versus the Environment and The Sustainable Economy: The Hidden Costs of Climate Change and the Path to a Prosperous Future More