JAMES WOLFENSOHN is President of the World Bank.

In what ways is international leadership, from the World Bank or elsewhere, especially necessary in the development process?

In the year 2000, global leaders came together and established a set of global objectives. These goals include halving poverty by the year 2015, getting universal education in primary school for children by the year 2015, halving the incidence of female and maternal mortality, and the programs that have been set in a series of conferences on carbon emissions and protection of the environment. These are the sorts of international goals that national leaders can use as guidelines in their own states. These standards are leverage: internationally recognized goals need to be addressed in national programs. When the level of implementation is reached, such as in the case of the global goal to reduce the incidence of AIDS, then international leaders can engage in discussions with domestic leadership to give the AIDS issue priority where in some cases it is a difficult subject to address for cultural reasons. The leverage of international agreement can open areas to discussion that would otherwise be closed.

How have personalities affected the interactions between local and international leaders in your experience? Can you cite any instances in which this interaction was especially effective or ineffective?

Let me cite two examples. One is the change in leadership in Russia between Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. The later outlined a new set of objectives for his country, which was a fresh look at the integration of Russia into the international community, as compared with Yeltsin’s rather less clear views of a nationalist Russia. That was one example in which a leadership change caused a large impact on the role of Russia internationally. The most recent example is of President Lula da Silva in Brazil, who has indicated that the role of Brazil in the next four years is to put food on the table for every Brazilian while maintaining the country’s international obligations in terms of contracts and debt repayment. So there has been a real change in Brazil now because of the personality of the leader, and as a consequence of that a real change, in the perception of Brazil internationally. These are two clear examples of that change.

What about interaction with other international organizations? How will the World Bank cooperate in the future with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the UN, and is some division of labor necessary to tackle issues like international development, economic rights, and global financial stability?

There is a sort of general delineation of the roles of these organizations, the IMF being more concerned with fiscal and economic stability and the Bank being more concerned with issues of poverty and development themselves, and with the various UN agencies each having responsibility in particular areas. Having said that, there are many areas of overlap. We overlap frequently with the IMF because the minute you start talking about economic progress and growth, you encounter issues that impact poverty and development. At the moment, looking at the UN Development Program (UNDP), there are areas of common attention. The moment a question of post-conflict reconstruction arises, there are various UN agencies, a lot of bilateral agencies, and you have the World Bank all involved. And, to an extent, the Monetary Fund. None of these things are behind firewalls. Today we have a series of cross-cutting activities, but with a different emphasis in each organization. And that means that you need a shared understanding; the partnership is essential. We now have a much greater sense of openness operating in the international community about what we are doing, with everybody recognizing that there is a need for cooperation, and nobody necessarily needing to be coordinated by anybody else. The idea is cooperation rather than coordination.

There has been much disagreement about what specific economic reforms should be employed in different countries. How much of this disagreement is explainable in terms of diverse national preferences, and how much should the World Bank try to unify these views into one coherent global strategy?

The purpose of the Bank is to unify countries in one coherent global strategy. One of the advantages of a global community is that states can decide how they want to live. I recently traveled to Bhutan, in the Himalayas, where the king and his people believe that the objective of the country is not to report in dollar terms, but in the sum of human happiness. The last thing I would want to do would be to change the Bhutanese mind to report in dollars and cents. The world’s diversity needs to be preserved, and the role of the Bank is to respect cultural differences, not to try and make everybody similar. Having said that, there are a number of issues in which we have learned quite a bit. Borrowing and then never repaying debts is not a good way for a country to achieve fiscal responsibility. If a country does not educate its children, it will have a real problem in the future. Similarly, if it allows diseases to run wild, it will not do very well. So there are some common things we address that, whatever the political and economic framework of the society, are human truths that always seem to work. Our task is to make sure on the common principles that we are supportive, but in the expression of the way in which countries seek to live, we are understanding and give support to the extent that we can. When countries cross the line and commit behaviors that make it impossible for us to lend money, give support, or feel safe in the country, then it is appropriate for us to raise those issues. But the last thing I want to do with the World Bank is to make everybody the same.

DAVID O'REILLY is Chief Executive Officer of ChevronTexaco.

What kind of influence can corporate leaders have on international events?

Political and governmental leaders, and the leaders of major multilateral institutions have significant impact, but corporate leadership is much more low-key. Corporate leaders have a legitimate view to represent, particularly where and when corporations think they can influence or guide policy, like trade policy for example, in a positive direction to spur economic growth. If properly managed, economic growth can positively impact the quality of life around the globe. So, from an international perspective, there is a very legitimate role for corporate leadership and communication on issues that are aligned with positive economic growth.