Spreading the corruption around

[TexasTiger 13,016]

The World Bank

The Wolfowitz affair

Apr 12th 2007 | WASHINGTON, DC

From The Economist print edition

A sweetheart deal leaves a sour taste in many mouths

UNDER the demanding but not always inspiring leadership of Paul Wolfowitz, the World Bank has toiled hard for the past year, hammering out a strategy to fight corruption until every last detail was in place. In its finally approved form, that well-honed document has much to say about the vital role of a “vibrant civil society” and “competitive media” in holding officials' feet to the fire.

AFPA neocon at bay

But as he prepares to welcome ministers to the bank's spring meetings in Washington, DC, on April 14th and 15th, Mr Wolfowitz's own toes (so memorably exposed when he doffed his shoes during a visit to a Turkish mosque) may feel a bit toasty. For that, he can thank the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a vibrant participant in America's civil society—and the document it has fed to competitive media still far more fascinated by the man than by the organisation that he has run for almost two years.

The document in question is the salary history of Mr Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Riza, who was working at the bank at the time of his arrival. Three months later, Ms Riza was posted to America's State Department at the insistence of the bank's ethics committee, which was not happy for one sweetheart to supervise another. What has raised eyebrows and greened complexions in Washington in recent weeks is the deal's super-generous financial terms: before she left the bank, Ms Riza was earning $132,660. Two big pay hikes later, she takes home $193,590, much more than the secretary of state herself.

According to the bank's anti-corruption strategy, the public disclosure of income and assets “can help to enhance the credibility of decision-makers”. But when Mr Wolfowitz's incredulous underlings read about these handsome sums in the Washington Post on March 28th, they flooded their staff association with expressions of “concern, dismay and outrage”; the association duly agreed that Ms Riza's terms were “grossly out of line” with staff rules and “extraordinarily discouraging” to bank minions whose entire annual pay was less than Ms Riza's rise.

http://www.economist.com/world/internation...tory_id=9013594