Shortly after the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz for World Bank President in early 2005, the UK’s Development Secretary Hilary Benn held a meeting in the House of Commons with over 200 employees of development charities to talk about his government’s Africa Commission report. Toeing the government line, he broadly welcomed to the appointment of Wolfowitz. The audience was furious and it made its feelings clear.

At the heart of what Wolfowitz is doing is a campaign against corruption. Fighting corruption and poor governance is vital in the fight against poverty. After all, if money goes to Swiss bank accounts rather than building roads or providing vaccines, how do the poor benefit? Wolfowitz’s work has involved, for example, banning 58 firms and individuals from competing for World Bank contracts, and the removal of World Bank staff who have acted corruptly. Where countries have failed to tackle corruption, money has been withheld. This is the right strategy for the Bank.

Monday’s Wall Street Journal Europe, however, criticises the UK and French members of the World Bank board. It says that: “some members of the board, especially its French and British members, tried to rein in the anticorruption effort lest it interfere with their desire to feel good about themselves by shoving money out the door. Leaks began to appear in the Washington Post and Financial Times criticizing Mr. Wolfowitz - which meant he was doing something right. Now the bank has issued a new anticorruption policy paper that looks on balance like a victory for the good guys.”