A deep sense of urgency in rebranding entities for a better Ghana: Why not?

 Sometimes, it becomes highly disinteresting to continue to diagnose and proffer transformative remedies for the ailing institutions in a country that promises a better Ghana. This is because almost all too well, it is not that leaders and ordinary Ghanaians of the country do not know how to deal with the problems of the entities therein, rather they are refusing to solve them.  Why those concerned are intentionally refusing to squarely deal with the problems that hinder the forward-march of the country is just bewildering. But then, high degree of greed which manifests itself in multifarious ways and inspired by polygons of forces may well be the immediate suspects to apprehend. These polygons of forces are however overwhelmingly powerful and have more often succeeded in hijacking not only the common interest of innocent Ghanaians but also that of the mandate of arresting entities.

Nonetheless, hope to change the dangerous circumstances into a better Ghana is not lost, should not be lost and cannot be lost. All the people of Ghana, both victims and culprits alike, are variously responsible and just must not afford to lose any hope. I am particularly comforted by the confidence that is attracted to the deeply entrenched hope by most Ghanaians, especially that of the nature which was defined by a Harvard professor as ‘angry at the way things are and courage to see to it that things do not remain as they are’.

Indeed, many Ghanaians are not in any way happy with the way things are but it appears that the necessary courage to change those annoying things is what is somehow lost. This needed transformative courage must be found and utilised by and in all entities at all cost. President John Dramani Mahama of Ghana has come with some renewed vigour to find the relevant nerves and  bravery to clear the mess that engulf many entities of the country which can best be described as weak, static, bleeding and or dysfunctional. The President of the republic as the Chief Executive Officer and Commander-in-Chief, on the authority of article 57(1,2) of the 1992 constitution, does have all the needed authority and power to lead a drastic positive transformative drive of all the institutions  and people in Ghana. 

In fact, it is not for nothing that all entities and persons in Ghana look up to, and answer or report to the President of the republic in a variety of ways. Thus, the President oversees every other habitation right from the Office of President to Ministries, Assemblies, Departments, Agencies, Institutions to Companies, and other establishments such as Groups and Associations as well as Individual Households and Persons therein. All of them do depend on the President to effectively charter a better course for all. But in a heavily corrupted country where disorderliness is portrayed as order, the challenge to penetrate through the thick maze of entangling mess is ever more herculean albeit verily surmountable if there is uncensored and confrontational determination and will-power closely guarded by a deep sense of urgency.

This sense of urgency must be profoundly anchored in rebranding various entities responsible for the total functionality of meeting the social needs of everyone. In this light, the following three key rebranding exercises must be vigorously pursued by the President.

Firstly, there has to be a crosscutting drive to right-sizing all personnel and tasks in all entities in the public sector. That is, efforts must be made to ensure that all personnel in such entities are relevant to their task portfolios and that such responsibilities thereof are appropriate to the achievement of measurable social needs. With immediate effect, serious pruning must thus be done to ensure that sanity is prevailed over ghost names, irrelevant personnel and duplication of tasks.

Secondly, there must be a redefinition of standard operation procedures in all public related entities in the country such that performance is measurable and evaluative.  This is in respect of time allowed to execute a given task, how to approach and execute the task, what output is allowed, how to present the output, what effects and impacts are allowed, corrective or mitigating measures and punitive mechanisms. For example, failure of a chief director or manager to execute a simple task of timely signing a cheque for purchase of fuel to power a generator-set that eventually leads to loss of revenue or lives or resources must not be spared in any way.  Conflict of interest in the public sector must be taken seriously and arrested. For example, there is no reason why a deputy minister, chief director, minister or their subordinates will earn a full-time degree in law or administration while at post. At the time they are pursuing their courses, they definitely are not appropriately performing their roles at their work places, yet they are fully paid.

Thirdly, strong and effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism must be put in place in all entities across board. This will help to uncover all the deep-seated corruption and inefficiencies in public entities. It should be possible to make sure that payment of all workers in the public sector is contingent on clean reports from expert monitoring and evaluation at the end of every month. There should not be unnecessary bureaucracies. Modern technology must be applied.  Monitoring and evaluation officers must promptly report directly to relevant heads who must relay usable data of personnel to the President, Chief of staff, attorney general, national security, auditor general and the accountant general for necessary action. 

This is necessary to instil discipline and integrity in all establishments in the public sector. In short, workers must be made to be effectively working and avoid corrupt practices. The President must be the senior-most monitoring and evaluation officer of the country and must take a no nonsense approach to disciplining his ministers and relevant officials that have violated the code of conduct and operating standards or the constitution. The ministers must not also tolerate any mediocrity, incompetence, corruption, laziness and indiscipline of whatever nature from Chief Directors, Directors and other senior officers of all agencies, departments, institutions, companies and groups or associations. Chief Directors, Directors, executive officers, departmental or agency heads and other senior officers must also be seen to be ensuring strict compliance by all those workers under them.

But you see, quality leadership must be by good example. For the President and his senior staff to be able to effectively enforce the labour laws and regulations as well as other operating standards, they must come with clean hands and be able to demonstrate that they themselves are not flouting such normative or legal standards and principles. For instance, at the very minimum level, all workers must be provided with the necessary operating tools and resources in order to attain optimal output.  For instance, the finance ministry must be made to wake up to ensure that entities receive their financial allocations timely to enable them perform. If you pretend to resource workers, they may well pretend to work!

Indeed, if a disciplined worker promptly and regularly goes to work but there is no papers to write or type on or no electrical power to operate computers or other office equipment, failure to perform can definitely not be the responsibility of such a worker who did not have means to get such resources other than from the effort of the supervisor or director or leader. Also, junior officers that endeavour to generate reports which end up not to be put to any use would be lackadaisical in performing their duties because they do know that their efforts are in vain. Moreover, junior officers who regularly witness corrupt practices perpetually committed by senior officers may well also be attracted to corruption or are emboldened to do so. In all the scenarios, the leader may not have the moral high grounds to discipline a subordinate when the subordinate is found doing something which has been inspired by the omission or commission by the leader. The leader must be disciplined in order to discipline others.

The foregoing three key rebranding strands need to be tackled with a deeper sense of urgency. This is primarily because without it, the venom of debilitating factors such as bureaucratic nightmares, pretence, indiscipline, conflict of interest, poor attitude, deep-seated corruption, nepotism, redundancies, incompetence and poor delivery will continue to strangulate the real growth and development of the economy towards achieving the better Ghana for all. Without replacing the existing brand which encapsulates unattractive features with that which is indicative of quality and good prospects, it may well imply that leadership is profiting from the mess the status quo provides or is not brave or competent enough to change the attitude of a mal-functional society in order to carry them along to a perfect destination.

What Ghana needs now is decisive, competent, courageous, transformative and exemplary leadership. President Mahama does have these leadership qualities and more. So has Vice President Emissah-Arthur. They must put them into action immediately or else their better Ghana advancement agenda will soon be stifled and crumbled by the vampires, ‘evil-dwarfs’ and buccaneers who ditheringly and insidiously loiter around to launch attack at the least opportunity.  Alas, the nation-wreckers somehow conquered the iconic polymath of many generations, Professor John Evans Atta Mills. Once bitten, twice shy and a stitch in time saves nine.

Adam Abukari: Lingering questions on the alternative reality of ...

Adam Abukari: Lingering questions on the alternative reality of ...: In every free and democratic country like Ghana that is governed by laws and ethics, all persons have inherent rights and corresponding ob...

Lingering questions on the alternative reality of NPP’s presidential election petition

In every free and democratic country like Ghana that is governed by laws and ethics, all persons have inherent rights and corresponding obligations, duties or responsibilities.

The obligation to declare the winner of both parliamentary and presidential elections in Ghana is particularly the preserve of the Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana. In this light and in the full participation of all political actors, the EC rightly declared 275 parliamentary candidates as winners and John Dramani Mahama as winner of the Presidential elections out of eight presidential candidates in the December 2012 general elections. The international community, led by the African Union (AU)/Ecowas election observers, heralded the elections as free, transparent and fair. The verdicts of domestic election observers including TV and radio stations were not any different. However, upon EC’s declaration of a presidential winner and whatever endorsements that might come along, it is still the inalienable right of any candidate who feels dissatisfied to protest by utilising the remedies available with the EC or petitioning the Supreme Court (SC) of Ghana in respect of the perceived circumvention of any rights (Art 64.1 of 1992 Constitution; Constitutional Instrument (CI) 74).

Much  worth  their right, it was therefore fascinating that by the 28^th  of December 2012  and well within the 21 days allowed  by (CI 74) 68A(1) ,  Nana Dankwa Akuffo-Addo (NPP presidential candidate),  Dr Mahamudu Bawumia (NPP Presidential running mate) and  Mr Jake Otanka Obestebi-Lamptey (NPP National Chairman) jointly petitioned the SC  claiming some irregularities, statutory violations and malpractices they perceived to have occurred which in their estimation ultimately disadvantaged the New Patriotic Party (NPP’s) presidential candidate from winning and that the declaration by the EC on 9^th December 2012 that  the National Democratic Congress (NDC’s) presidential candidate,  President John Dramani Mahama,  won the December 2012 presidential elections  with 50.70% representing 5,574,761  votes over Nana Akuffo-Addo’s  47.74% representing 5,248,896 votes  was flawed and should be overturned (EC,2012; SC Registry, 2012).

Key issues raised in the pending petition have been ‘over-voting, pink sheets without  signatures of presiding officers, polling stations with similar serial numbers, extra polling stations not part of the 26,002, mismatch of words and figures, wrong arithmetic and voting without biometric verification’. According to the Petitioners in the amended petition (7^th February 2013), these apparent irregularities, malpractices and statutory violations occurred in 11,916 polling stations (a jump from 4,709 in the original petition) thus affecting 4,670,504 valid votes (a jump from 1,342,845 in original petition) which they are praying the SC to annul, pronounce Nana Akuffo-Addo as the validly elected president and give any consequential orders deemed by the Court (SC Registry, 2013).   

Those are, indeed, very intriguing but curious allegations and demands from the Petitioners because of four main reasons: (1) At all material times, the representatives of NPP and the Petitioners were adequately represented equitably as that of the representatives of the NDC, President John Mahama and the EC (the three respondents to the petition). This included  voting, counting of votes, collation of votes, confirmation of votes and declaration of winner; (2) The processes thereof were adequately transparent and largely done in the full glare of the public as required by most of the safeguards in Article 49 of the Constitution and  CI 75 (articles 29 to 41 particularly); (3)  The irregularities, malpractices and statutory violations must have affected  all presidential candidates as well as all parliamentary candidates in such alleged polling stations; (4) SC has no mandate and capacity to declare any elections in Ghana, EC rather does (Art 63.9, 1992 Constitution). SC can only determine legality or validity of EC’s conduct or outcome thereof upon which SC can order EC to re-collate votes or re-conduct elections or put its house in order so as to redress the balance (Art 64.2, 1992 Constitution).

Even though the foregoing rights and obligations appear to be interspersed, it is clear that: (1) EC performed its duties; (2) President Mahama had been duly elected as president of Ghana (CI 80; 7^th January 2013 Parliamentary Hansard); (3) The Petitioners have also performed their duty by submitting their claims of case to the SC; (4) SC will hear the claimants’ case and shall come out with its verdict in due course. All of these must be respected by all well-meaning citizens and inhabitants of Ghana (1992 Constitution; (CI) 16, (CI) 74, (CI) 75).

Nonetheless, it appears that there is a deliberate ploy by the Petitioners and their supporters to sensationally exploit pettiness, rights and the law. These should likely amount to blatant abuse of democratic and judicial credentials of the country. Otherwise, how else do you expect the Petitioners to be alleging irregularities and malpractices in Court but from outside the Court their supporters are brandishing fraud and stealing?  

Why would Petitioners’ or NPP’s Members of Parliament (MPs) refuse to participate in anything involving President Mahama in so far as, according to them, such activities will not outlive the President in the event that the President is declared as invalid by the SC, yet such NPP’s MPs happily go home with GHC 50,000 accommodation allowance and other emoluments approved by the President? How come the NPP’s MPs do recognise their own validity to be MPs, yet the Nana Addo they and the Petitioners are vouching for with their superfluous allegations, who  equally went through same processes, venues, EC and time period but eventually lost to President Mahama is not recognised by them?

 At what point did the alleged malpractices or “stealing” occur? Was it done at EC’s ‘strong room’ in Accra where all parties had their strong representatives including NPP’s Mac Manu (NPP’s former chairman) even after all the stakeholders had certified the results at all the polling and collation centres? Some ‘pink sheets’ or election result sheets were also alleged not to have been signed by Presiding officers of the EC, who indeed ought to have appended their signatures, but how come NPP’s representatives and that of other political parties signed at least over 25,950 of the ‘pink sheets’?  Was NPP’s representatives compromised in any way? What about the other political parties’ representatives? What about the observers? 

  

How do the Petitioners and NPP expect SC to annul over 4,000,000 votes of voters who had nothing to do with any malpractices and irregularities but who only went through the processes allowed by electoral officers and party representatives to cast their votes? Would it be in anyway legitimate to have such eligible votes expunged, without reasonable justification and substantive remedies, by just 5, 7, 9 or 11 Justices of the SC who themselves know that, under the circumstance, they likely do not have the jurisdiction to do such a thing (Art 42, 1992 constitution)?

Why is it that NPP and the Petitioners’ supporters would still go about demonstrating to have their votes counted when indeed the Petitioners are rather praying the SC to deny some people of their votes? Do the Petitioners really have confidence in the strength of their case and that of the SC at all? Isn’t the Petitioners’ case a colourful representation of bitter losers who are refusing to be better losers? Isn’t it about: (a) Trying to sow a seed of discord in the Ghanaian society? (b) NPP’s leaders deceiving their supporters for letting them down? (c) Preparing the grounds for their 2012 presidential candidate to run on the ticket of NPP again? (d) Trying to create legitimacy crisis in the minds of people? (e) Selfishness and ill-motives on the part of NPP and the Petitioners who know all too well that although the elections might not have been 100% perfect, at whatever rate Nana Akuffo-Addo clearly lost the 7-8 December 2012 general elections on behalf of NPP?

Indeed, given the highly rated nature of the December 2012 elections, no one can honestly compare the credibility of any of the elections ever held in Ghana with that which was recently held.

In fact the unconventional reality is that, without prejudicing the petition before the SC, if SC were to even annul the 4,670,504 eligible votes from 11,916 polling stations at the very least of margins, and shall have to order EC to re-collate or re-run elections in such polling stations where irregularities appeared to have occurred, the NDC and President John Mahama will still be most likely to come out as clear victors. Nevertheless, albeit petty to litigate, NPP must be congratulated because its Petitioners are helping to put EC much on its toes. EC’s Chairman, Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan, must take some of the issues seriously and use them to further perfect the coveted EC before he finally retires.

  

So then, why wouldn’t luminaries in NPP want to dare to bring their party together to squarely face the future reality instead of fighting non-existing past when existing present doesn’t even seem to have the capacity to provide the needed arsenals to defend and procure its own relevance? Peradventure, your surmise may well be more perfect than mine!

SU Elections Results Night • NUTS - Nottingham University Television Station

SU Elections Results Night • NUTS - Nottingham University Television Station

Adam Abukari: A World Without Wars and Acrimony - The Challenge and Possibility

Adam Abukari: A World Without Wars and Acrimony - The Challenge and Possibility

A World Without Wars and Acrimony - The Challenge and Possibility

Revisiting my archives 

Every where there is a turn there certainly is a bend. People are seen crying whilst tears are busily turning the faces into a stream of sadness. Single graves go competing for space with mass graves whilst lost rotten carcasses unveil the sorrow of their pale muscles and bones that could not cross the frontiers of survival. Some people are found laughing un-end but beneath their joy stands a heap of discomfort.

Unborn babies struggle to come out of the wombs of their mothers whose only wish is to die alone with the babies alive to collect enough evidence on the makers of an evil world without mercy. Children and mothers alike are running helter skelter for a refuge that remains a very scarce commodity. Old men and old women strive for protection from those who know no protection themselves. The disabled are left in the absolute care of solitary desperation.

Time remains an enemy and space fairly represents a demon in the eyes of those who find no place to deposit their sorrows. Tribes are against tribes. Families are against families. Non-families are against families. Families are against non-families. Enemies are against enemies. Enemies are against friends. Friends are against enemies. Friends are against friends. Believers are against believers. Non-believers are against non-believers. Non believers are against believers. Believers are against non-believers.

What a world of against and distrust! Missiles rule order and rockets administer protest. The voices of the suppressed are only heard when they go on rioting.  Bombs direct intelligence and armory decides on justice. Courts are either the first point of call towards intelligence gathering for display of military complex and might or they are the last point of call to draw intelligence for future combat. Justice system empowers who can schematize best and not who could possibly be right.

Leaders are best at detaining social order instead of creating social justice. Followers or subordinates insulate their superiors with overriding authority. Crime goes on rampage looking for victims to be persecuted. Strength and selfish interest connive with pretense to perpetuate disorder. International diplomacy is interpreted as ‘the less powerful ones can always have their say but the powerful ones will all the time have their way no matter the magnitude of casualty’. Blame game comforts those that profit from change of names of organizations that control world order without commitment to purpose. In favor of lies, facts wage relentless fight against truth so as to turn noble heads against each other.

This is a world without borders for disorder. A world that seems to know no justice. A world that is full of social strain. A world that feeds on crime. A world that is ruled on pretense. A world that has no mercy. A world that has no trust. A world that is controlled by destructive technology. A world managed by sycophants. A world without peace. A world full of poverty. A plentiful world with hungry belly. A world that truly knows no God. A world that is oiled by discrimination. A world that defies the purpose of its creation. A world that has betrayed its creator. A world that has already experienced two major wars that exterminated over a billion people. A world full of thorns. A loved world with hated contents. A world that needs divine intervention. A world that needs salvation. A world that must be rebuilt.

A world that must realize its folly and repent. A world that must call itself to order. A world that must not allow any third world war to come. A world that must expose hypocrites in order to unite the world. A world that must give independence to all agitating territories. A world that must stop the massacres and genocides. A world that must respect and accommodate refugees. A world that must stop the pockets of conflicts within and across its perimeters. A world that must cohere to unite. A world that must always strive for justice.

A changed and purified world that must resolve to swear an uncompromising affidavit to do the following without hesitation: To agree that all weapons of nature, size and power be gathered from all countries and destroyed by an independent body that would have all countries represented. To agree that no country will have special rights or powers over others. To agree that no matter the level of respect for the pioneers of world’s socio-economic order, there certainly must not be super powers when it comes to the issue of weapons. To unanimously agree to attack, eliminate and destroy any leadership of a country that refuses to get their weapons destroyed. To form independent monitoring groups in all countries that would ensure that no reproduction of weapons is possible. To agree on set of codified rules and regulations that should be protected and honored by all members.

To agree on grievous punishment for those that violate the rule of weapons reproduction. To agree that all weapons manufacturing centers are destroyed but not closed. To mount an intensive campaign on bad governance and form an independent body to oversee its compliance and forceful removal of the leaders that fall foul. To agree that there must be regular rotation of heads or leaders in the independent bodies set up. To agree that any decision reached is supported by not less than two thirds of the total membership. To agree that leaders can be impeached on misconduct at any time.

To agree that the era of the world dominated by weapons proliferation is a curse of a bane and must not be tolerated by anybody. To agree that many of the weapons in circulation are instigated and sponsored by world powers and key state functionaries and must therefore be controlled at that level but not necessarily the individual gun runners who are often victimized. To agree that the economic profits earned from these weapons are evils of human survival and must better be shunned. To agree that the world would be a safest place to live in without the so-called weapons insidiously manufactured to kill but not necessarily to protect as often asserted. To agree that dialogue, understanding, tolerance, equity, appreciation of diversity and social justice could be more of protective weapons than conventional destructive instruments.

To agree that the campaign to stop others from acquiring weapons whilst others are at liberty to do same is highly hypocritical, discriminational and unacceptable and thus must be stopped. To agree that if the current efforts to acquire modern destructive weapons is not abrogated, a weapon would soon be developed that can exterminate the whole world just by a click of a button on an explosive tool. To agree that the United Nations organization has somewhat failed in its international security obligation to protect the world and that there is the urgent need to form an independent dispassionate international security organization that is solely responsible for ensuring a trouble free world or indeed to restructure the security apparatus of UN altogether. To agree that we can really make our world a safer and most secured place to live in if we are really committed and willing to do so.

To resolve that some of the issues raised might look overambitious or even Utopian but it could certainly not be far from reach after all. All we need is to strive hard to work at it - and surely - we should have a better world - a world without wars and acrimony.

World Bank's President Robert Zoellick on the World's Challenges

As Published by Newsweek on Sunday, January 23, 2011

By R. M. Schneiderman

Over the past year, emerging markets such as China, India, and Brazil have continued to drive economic growth, while the developed world, namely the United States and parts of Europe, have remained mired in debt and unemployment. In the lead-up to the World Economic Forum in Davos, NEWSWEEK's R. M. Schneiderman interviewed World Bank president Robert B. Zoellick about the future of the global economy.

What is the biggest challenge facing the developing world in 2011?

The biggest challenge facing most developing countries is the risk of a big boost in food prices. Food accounts for a large and increasingly volatile share of family budgets for poor and urban families. When prices of staple foods soar, poor countries and poor people bear the brunt. France's President Sarkozy, Chair of the G-8 and G-20 this year, has rightly identified this issue as a priority.

How can the globe assure food security in the face of rising prices?

There are two interrelated challenges. First, we need to increase food productivity and production in developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and with small-holder farmers. To do so, we need to fix problems all along the "value chain": property rights; R&D for seeds and inputs; irrigation; fertilizer; agricultural extension; credit; rural infrastructure; storage; and connection to markets. The World Bank Group manages a Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, with contributions from six countries as of now and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to help promote investments in small-holder farmers. In 2011, I hope we can get more contributions. Separately, the World Bank Group is boosting investment in agriculture to about $6-8 billion a year through our lending and investment projects.

The second problem is the volatility of food prices, often because of events outside poor countries' control. An interconnected combination of steps could help ensure that the most vulnerable countries and people get the nutrition they need. For example, we can increase public information on the quality and quantity of grain stocks to reassure markets and calm panic-induced price spikes. We can improve long-range weather forecasting and monitoring, especially in Africa, to better prepare for dangers. Export bans exacerbate panic pricing, so we need a code of conduct that at least exempts humanitarian purchases from bans.

We can help small-holder farmers become a bigger part of the solution for food security through tenders from humanitarian purchasers such as the World Food Program. We need financial and other tools to help farmers and their governments manage risk, whether of rainfall, prices of inputs such as energy, or others. We may need small, regional humanitarian food reserves, too, in disaster-prone, infrastructure-poor areas. We should also ensure effective, targeted social safety nets so that we protect the most vulnerable populations, such as pregnant and lactating women and children under two. The bottom line: The G-20 should agree to "Put Food First."

What about the world economy?

For the world economy as a whole, the macro challenge is managing and enhancing a modest multispeed recovery that must steer clear of various shoals: for major emerging markets, avoiding overheating or bubbles in certain sectors; for the EU, navigating through sovereign debt icebergs that could puncture big holes in the financial sector; for the US, creating jobs today while breaking the wave of structural spending and debt increases; for all, setting course to make structural reforms suited to each economy to boost growth and a rebalanced international economy.

What do you think will be the most contentious economic issue this year and why?

The contention flows from the tension in resolving challenges without burdening others. Because money is the medium that interconnects economies, differences will be reflected in complaints about the international monetary system; exchange rates for currencies; large and perhaps volatile shifts of capital; and domestic monetary policies that could have international effects.

These differences could spill over to other channels of interaction, such as protectionism in trade, uncompetitive favoritism of national companies and workers, or export bans of agricultural products. On the other hand, sustainable growth, with a rebalancing of demand both between domestic sources and trade, and across countries at various stages of recovery and development, could create win-win opportunities that ease tension.

What has been the biggest economic success story of 2010 and who appears poised to do well in 2011?

The growth in developing countries has been a particular bright spot. In fact, a key difference between this downturn and past ones is that developing countries stepped up to fill the gap. Developing countries now represent about half of global growth. This is a very different world from even ten years ago. It certainly is a stark contrast to the international economic crises in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, sparked by problems in developing countries. Today, developing economies provide an important source of demand for exports from developed countries. And developing countries offer opportunities within a changing international economy: new, multiple poles of growth; investments and profits; better educated workforces that can add to innovation and productivity; more talent to solve problems; and sharing of responsibilities. Yet the adjustment process to a modernized multilateralism will be a constant and continuing challenge.

Will we see bubbles in any of the major emerging markets?

The developing world has been a source of strength, by and large. But the major emerging markets--China, India, Brazil, Southeast Asia--are starting to level off to avoid overheating or bubbles in some sectors. In some countries, this adjustment will prove a challenge--because of influences from the international economy or supply-side bottlenecks at home. The good news is that almost all are alert to the dangers and most seem able to manage them.

Looking ahead, we need to recognize there is no longer a "Third World." Developing countries vary enormously. Yet they can learn from one another, invest in one another, trade with one another, and especially within geographical regions, increasingly integrate with one another.  The "Third World" mindset assumed a "North-South" transfer; our new multipolarity will see South-South, and even South-North transfers of goods, capital, and ideas, along with North-South and North-North exchanges.

This shift multiplies possibilities. But it will challenge policymakers in both developed and developing countries to adjust and shape new cooperative systems. The private sector is already doing so. And modernized multilateral institutions such as the World Bank Group need to adapt, too.

How can we reduce currency tensions between the U.S. and China?

There will be tensions, as monetary (and therefore currency) relations are a principal source of intermediation amidst the tectonic shifts to a new multipolar economy, even as we cope with the current great upheaval. Yet the currency issues should not divert attention from the underlying, fundamental challenges: rebalancing global demand and creating new opportunities for growth.

China and the U.S. are the two biggest economies, one developed and one developing. While I believe the Chinese should appreciate their currency over time, that change will not be a silver bullet. China needs structural changes to increase domestic demand through increasing consumption and lowering savings, especially the retained earnings of favored companies with low cost financing and limited competition. China will be pointing in this direction with its next (the 12th) Five Year Plan, but the shift won't be easy.

The U.S. faces the reverse shift: It needs relatively higher savings and lower consumption. So the US will need structural reforms to cut the rate of increases in government spending and debt, while fostering incentives for growth and increases in productivity, innovation, and opportunity.

Similarly, other countries and regions need to face the structural and pro-growth challenges most important to their circumstances. This will not be easy, especially in economies with many unemployed, because political systems will strain under the pressures. Yet if countries slide into conflicts--instead of cooperating to find common but differentiated solutions - dangers could spiral downward.

Would a return to the gold standard be beneficial?

I think gold is already being viewed as an alternative monetary asset because holders of money perceive uncertain prospects in all countries and currencies other than China, and the renminbi is not free for exchange and investment. The antidote is for major economies to pursue sustainable, pro-growth policies based on structural reforms, open trade, and sound money. This is not the same as a gold standard, nor would I recommend a return to that standard or the old Bretton Woods system. We need to move toward flexible exchange rates and autonomous monetary policies for major economies in a new multipolar, international economy. This world economy is likely to evolve toward multiple reserve currencies, with the U.S. dollar still dominant, but not exclusive. This system will need norms of monetary and broader economic behavior with the IMF as a "referee," [and] gold might be an informational, not operational, tool to assess markets' confidence in underlying growth and monetary policies.

How can the U.S. reconcile the return of growth with persistent unemployment?

The demand for U.S. goods and services--whether from at home or abroad--has not been high enough to create sufficient new jobs. Yet at this point in the recovery, if big increases in demand were to come through much larger government spending and debt, private companies and individuals may become more cautious because of the fear of huge future costs.

Therefore, the U.S. needs a careful "handoff" to demand led by the private sector. Many bigger U.S. companies are profitable, productive, and have available cash. With the right policies on government spending, taxes, regulations, trade, and longer-term structural growth, these companies will invest, create more private sector jobs, and enhance America's competitive strength. The same policies would assist small businesses, which have less leeway and a harder time getting credit. Even as the U.S. steers toward a recovery with more "demand," it needs to foster the incentives, innovation, education, and investment to boost the medium- and long-term growth path.

In the absence of a true global climate accord, what role can the World Bank play to reduce emissions?

It would be a big mistake to wait for 195 countries to reach a huge new treaty on climate change. After the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, the World Bank Group worked with Mexico and others to advance key building blocks to address climate change. These included:  curbing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; energy efficiency; alternative energies; technology development; carbon market development; carbon finance; adaptation; and relatively untapped tools such as soil carbon linked to better agriculture.

We can make progress and learn lessons on the ground while others negotiate texts. We can build support for addressing greenhouse gases by more countries--developing and developed--by putting concepts into practice. We can assist smaller and less powerful states--such as small island countries, poor mountain states, and sub-Saharan Africa--that otherwise feel ignored, perhaps tempting some to obstruct negotiations that they think do not take account of their interests. We can use our new Climate Investment Funds to leverage other sources of public and private funding--we are raising about $8 for every $1 we invest--to help developing countries move toward low carbon growth and adaptation through practical projects. We can try to ensure that the "perfect" isn't the enemy of the "good."

How important are cities to the climate change debate?

Cities are significant players in all aspects of climate change debate, with important policy choices to make. A recent World Bank report outlined that residents of cities around the world are responsible for as much as 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time facing significant impacts from climate change, such as bearing the majority of $80-$100 billion per year climate adaptation costs.

Many major cities--such as New York, Mexico City, Amman, and Sao Paulo--are not waiting for a comprehensive and global climate deal. They are already acting on climate change by addressing mitigation and adaptation, connected to the delivery of basic urban services and overcoming poverty through local initiatives.

Cities have a unique position in confronting climate change because they are the optimum scale for action: large enough to enact meaningful pilots and introduce "first responder" programs, yet sufficiently close to the communities.

Cities need to draw ideas from one another, gain the support of their national governments, and leverage international partners. The World Bank Group is providing targeted assistance in urban areas such as Mexico City, Cairo, and Bangkok; it is also preparing detailed vulnerability assessments for several coastal cities. Together with the United Nations Environment Program and UN-Habit, the World Bank Group has jointly developed a work plan to provide faster and more coordinated assistance to cities.

What do you expect to come out of the meeting at Davos?

I expect attendees will discuss: the global recovery and its risks; food prices and food security; international monetary issues; opportunities to open markets to trade; gender and development; helping states coming out of conflict or disaster; and next steps on climate change. I hope participants will look "over the horizon" to try to anticipate what other issues policy-makers and business leaders should be addressing.

Davos is a forum to generate and discuss ideas. The actions will need to come from the G-20, international organizations, other fora, and from private sector institutions and individuals who can help solve problems. The seeds of ideas planted in Davos can be harvested elsewhere.

Who do you think will become the next major emerging economies?

I think all developing regions offer opportunities. To underscore this point, I believe that Africa can be a global pole of growth in coming years. Sub-Saharan Africa has already outpaced the global trend in 2010, with output at 4.7 percent, compared with a global increase of 3.9 percent. Looking forward, sub-Saharan Africa is projected to grow at 5-6 percent in coming year.

Africa is a continent of great diversity, so it's hard to generalize. But we have a dynamic of roughly three different groups. First, about a third of the population is experiencing good growth. For them the challenges are access to energy, more infrastructure and agriculture investments, greater regional integration linked to global markets, and a stronger private sector. Another third of the people live in energy resource-rich countries. These countries need better governance, anti-corruption, and inclusive growth policies while avoiding the trap of enclave economies. Finally, another third lives in states paralyzed by conflict. The people in those countries need greater security, better governance, and longer-term support to promote peace and help restore a stable development path.

Before the crisis, African economies were growing at 5 percent a year for over a decade, accelerating to over 6 percent for the last three years. Poverty was declining by about one percentage point a year--a rate faster than in India. Before the crisis, primary school enrolment rates were rising faster than in any other continent. And in just 4 years, child mortality rates fell by 25 percent in about 13 countries.

Of course there is another side to that story--the nearly 400 million Africans who live on $1.25 a day; the massive infrastructure deficit that leaves only one in four with access to electricity--and even fewer with access to clean water and sanitation. There are other political and security challenges, such as recent breakdown in Cote d'Ivoire.

With the right policies and good governance, with support for infrastructure and skills-training, Africa can attract investment--to mutual benefit. With a sensible policy framework, the private sector has invested over $56 billion in mobile networks on the African continent, boosting the number of mobile subscribers in the region from 4 million to over 400 million.