Evolution of the World Bank Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Evolution of the World Bank - Case Study Example The World Bank is a group of five closely associated international organizations responsible for providing finance and advice to countries for the purposes of economic development and eliminating poverty. Its five agencies are: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD); International Finance Corporation (IFC); International Development Association (IDA); Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA); and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The World Bank's activities are particularly focused on economically backward developing countries. These activities are in fields such as agriculture and rural development (e.g. irrigation, rural services), human development (e.g. education, health), infrastructure (e.g. roads, urban regeneration, electricity), governance (e.g. anti-corruption, legal institutions development) and environmental protection (e.g. pollution reduction, establishing and enforcing regulations). Each of these organizati ons has their own aims and objectives. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) aims to reduce poverty in middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries by promoting sustainable development through loans, guarantees, risk management products, and analytical and advisory services. The IBRD and IDA provide loans at preferential rates to member countries, as well as grants to the poorest countries for developmental activities. Most of the times loans or grants for specific projects that may result in improvement of policy changes. For instance, loans to improve coastal environmental management that may be linked to development of new environmental institutions at national and local levels and to implementation of new regulations to limit pollution. The main activities of the IFC and MIGA include investment in the private sector and capitalizing insurance respectively (Wikipedia, 2007a). The IBRD was established in 1944 as the original institution of the World Bank Group. It is structured like a cooperative that is owned and operated for the benefit of its'185 member countries (web.worldbank.org, 2007). IBRD raises most of its funds on the world's financial markets. In 1946 the Bank had an authorized capital of $10 bi11ion, worth about 20 times as much today. However, all through its development it has been singularly garnered more controversy and criticism than any other international financial or development institution. In 1993 the Bank's total callable capital was almost $166 billion, though of that only $10.53 was paid in (Rich, 1994). The income that IBRD has been generated from the time of its inception has allowed it to fund development activities and to ensure its financial strength. As a result of this it is enabled to borrow at low cost and offer clients good borrowing terms (web.worldbank.org, 2007). From mid 1946 to mid 1986 the World Bank lent a total o f $160 billion for 4,000 different projects in around 100 countries, and has even more increased in the last few decades. By any reckoning the Bank's resources are huge (Hardy, N.D.). Till date IBRD has not suffered any losses

Comparing The U.S. Health Care System with that of The United Kingdom Essay

Comparing The U.S. Health Care System with that of The United Kingdom - Essay Example (United Nations Development Programme; See Table 1). This means that health care is a luxury that people with more money can buy more of and a better quality of. Choosing to utilize a system of privately funded health care may be a result of the attitude of the United States of being "free," which can be taken to mean free from government control or interference in the free market. While there is public funding available for the elderly and the extremely poor, many people still do not receive the health care they need. This lack of health care for citizens who need it is currently a topic of much debate. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, funds its citizens' health care publicly, through taxes. According to the 2007-2008 Human Development Report, 7% of GDP in the United Kingdom is spent on public health care while just 1.1% must be spent privately. (United Nations Development Programme; See Table 1). This difference in expenditures in the United Kingdom translates to the view of health care as a fundamental human right rather than a money-based privilege. When health care began to be publicly funded, "the idea was that if Britain could work towards full employment and spend huge sums of money during the wartime effort, then in a time of peace equitable measures of social solidarity and financial resources could be redirected towards fostering public goods." (Wikipedia, 2008). Although publicly funded health care provides more health care to a greater number of people, some people believe that the quality of health care provided is lower. In some cases people choose to seek priva te health care, if they can afford it, but they are often upset about having to pay for both private health care and the public health care they are opting out of. Many people do not like the feeling that they are paying for the health care of other people who get sick more frequently or are less healthy. Another concern with the United Kingdom's public health care system is that patients are often waitlisted to see doctors for pressing matters; this has led to unnecessary deaths. (Browne, 2001). Putting the private versus public funding debate aside momentarily, there appears also to be discrepancy in the total amount of combined public and private money spent on health care between the United States and the United Kingdom. Based on the previously discussed statistics, the United States spends 15.4% of GDP on its health care while the United Kingdom spends a considerably lower 8.1% of GDP on health care. In terms of what this means for each individual residing in these countries, while per capita GDP in the United States is $41,890 and $6,096 of that is spent on health care, per capita GDP in the United Kingdom is a slightly lower $36,509 but a significantly lower amount, only $2,560 per capita is spent on health care. (United Nations Development Programme; See Table 1). By having everyone contribute a little bit to the entire society's health care, it appears that health care becomes significantly cheaper for everyone. It is also interesting to note that the United States, with a GDP (in millions) of $12,416.5, as compared to the United Kingdom's $2,198.8, would have a lot of GDP to spend elsewhere if only 8.1% was spent on health care instead of 15.4%. Because there are many mixed feelings