Paul Wolfowitz: crony capitalism?

[yoMAMA]

World Bank president forced into humiliating apology for ordering a pay rise and promotion at the bank for his girlfriend

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article1646814.ece

the ironoic part is, his biggest agenda for the world bank is to fight corruption.

[Faithless]

Gettin' paid.
Gettin' laid.

Is it cronyism or favoritism?

[ru a banana?]

If we fired everyone for corruption, who would run our country?

[haplesshobo]

Let's be honest here, this is less about corruption and more about settling old scores, ie the invasion of Iraq. If Wolfowitz wasn't tied to that, do you really think this would be an issue? The people trying to take him down for corruption have been more than willing to look the other way when it comes to clear cut corruption, so you have to ask yourself why are they now making a big deal of something that may or may not be corruption. After all, you could just as easily point to the fact that Wolfowitz initially tried to recuse himself from decisions involving his lady friend, who had already been working at the Bank for over seven years before Wolfowitz arrived. And, that he had only intervened after being directly ordered to do so by the head of the Bank's ethic committee. It all strikes me as a little bit disingenous.

[monkeygone2]

Wolfie's girl's $193,000 is tax-free, while the US Secretary of State's taxable salary is around $183,000.

[Faithless]

Yeah. I'm beginning to feel sorry for him already, as the vultures are circling.

Let Wolfy get his dick on!

Whoever Andy Martin is, says (http://www.pr-inside.com/andy-martin-says-wolfowitz-has-forgotten-r93430.htm):
'Mr. Wolfowitz has apparently forgotten the sex scandals of the Clinton years,- Martin will charge. 'Republicans then stood for a higher moral standard in ‘office politics.' I am distressed and disappointed to see Treasury Secretary Paulson endorsing misbehavior at the Bank. We should avoid not only actual impropriety but the ‘appearance of impropriety.' Mr. Wolfowitz' tactics appears to have been mendacious and evasive. We impeached a president for Wolfowitz' type of legerdemain.

'Since he arrived at the Bank, Wolfowitz has treated the enterprise as a Chicago-style patronage machine for his political cronies and paramour. That is silly unacceptable. He has undermined his own efforts to fight against corruption and for more transparency.-
Lighten up, Mr. Martin! What's wrong with a little pussy at work?

[yoMAMA]

Let's be honest here, this is less about corruption and more about settling old scores, ie the invasion of Iraq. If Wolfowitz wasn't tied to that, do you really think this would be an issue? The people trying to take him down for corruption have been more than willing to look the other way when it comes to clear cut corruption, so you have to ask yourself why are they now making a big deal of something that may or may not be corruption. After all, you could just as easily point to the fact that Wolfowitz initially tried to recuse himself from decisions involving his lady friend, who had already been working at the Bank for over seven years before Wolfowitz arrived. And, that he had only intervened after being directly ordered to do so by the head of the Bank's ethic committee. It all strikes me as a little bit disingenous.

umm, dude, not really.

two memos by wolfowitz lies at the heart of the charges:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5994b7c0ea09-11db-91c7-000b5df10621.html

former legal advisor challenges wolfowitz's story:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/91d80f9c-e9f0-11db-91c7-000b5df10621.html

this scandal just shows you how outdated the world bank (and IMF) are in today's global economy.

World bank president are not picked for merits, but for political reasons-same with IMF.

[yoMAMA]

Gettin' paid.
Gettin' laid.

Is it cronyism or favoritism?

two sides of the same coin-


you don't get paid,

you don't get laid.

[haplesshobo]

umm, dude, not really.

two memos by wolfowitz lies at the heart of the charges:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5994b7c0ea09-11db-91c7-000b5df10621.html

former legal advisor challenges wolfowitz's story:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/91d80f9c-e9f0-11db-91c7-000b5df10621.html

this scandal just shows you how outdated the world bank (and IMF) are in today's global economy.

World bank president are not picked for merits, but for political reasons-same with IMF.

Um...

Dude, your links don't really disprove any of my points:

1) This organization focus has never been on corruption, and allowed corruption to remain unfettered. The argument has been that there were more important goals than corruption. So, when the organization has been willing to overlook corruption in the past, why is it suddenly interested now?

A large part of the sturn und drang is because of Wolfowitz's connection to the Iraq invasion. He had always been a controversial pick from the very beginning because of that, and many of his employees had opposed his nomination because of that.

2) Wolfowitz originally tried to recuse himself from this matter but reluctantly had to get involved after the Ethics Committee told him he could not recuse himself. And, that it was the Ethics Committee which recommended that Wolfowitz's lady friend should be reassigned even though she opposed this reassignment. Before she had been reassigned, her salary at the World Bank was already $132,600. And, the Ethics Committe noted that she was in line for a promotion for the World Bank, where her salary would have been bumped up another 50K. (On top of all this, that salary of $182,600 would be tax free as well so that would actually make it worth even more than a salary with the same pay but where you had to pay taxex. That WB salary would have been worth more than the one she eventaully got when she was reassigned). As such, the Ethics Committee had told Wolfowitz "the potential disruption of the staff member's career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record."

Let's do a little thought experiment here, and approach this in a different matter. Remove Wolfowitz and his lady friend from the equation, and put yourself in a hypothetical situation. You love your job, and are going to get promoted soon and get a big raise. Then, even thought the company though you were doing a excellent job or they wouldn't promote you, the company reassigns you to another job. Do you think your salary should take a hit because of that?

If you're going to post a poll, then it should be good manners to post both the pro and con arguments. Otherwise, it might as well be as a rant. Its like asking a question, when you really want to hear only a specific answer. I'm not a fan of Wolfowitz myself for the way he totally fucked up the whole Iraq invasion, but I see a lot of this controversy as a way for his critics to go after him for Iraq without admitting it. If you hate him for Iraq, then man up and criticize him for Iraq, not something unrelated to that.

[Faithless]

The Economist says better whatever dude was trying to say:

Woeful Wolfowitz (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9023322&fsrc=RSS)

The WB ethics committee essentially screwed-up by letting Wolfy decide more of his girlfriend's fate than he should have. And then says --

...
And that is not all. Bank staffers, acutely conscious of rank and status, were outraged to discover that Ms Riza was all but guaranteed a second promotion, to the rank of director or senior adviser, on her return when Mr Wolfowitz’s term ends in 2010. If he serves for a second term, she would come back in 2015 at the level of a vice-president, the pinnacle of the staff hierarchy. Both positions are rare and heavily contested. But Ms Riza would only have to pass a review by peers whom she herself would have a hand in choosing.

What was Mr Wolfowitz thinking? Despite appearances, it seems doubtful he was trying to feather the nest of a love-bird. More likely, he was trying to appease her. Ms Riza was clearly upset that she would have to leave a long and successful career, against her wishes, because her employers had picked her boyfriend to lead them. That pique might have posed a “legal risk” to the institution, Mr Wolfowitz says. As an international body, the bank cannot be sued under the employment law of its host country. But aggrieved employees can turn to the bank’s administrative tribunal, which has on occasion forced the institution to pay compensation.

The bank’s executive directors must now decide if they share that interpretation. They may show leniency, if only because they themselves have egg on their face. Their ethics committee should never have given Mr Wolfowitz the latitude he went on to abuse. And they should have dealt with that abuse much earlier. Back in January 2006, they received an email from a bank whistleblower calling himself “John Smith”. It revealed that Ms Riza was given $180,000 on her promotion. That should have set the alarm bells ringing. But instead, after a “careful review”, the ethics committee concluded that nothing was amiss and that John Smith’s email “contained no new information”.

“Mr Smith” warned the board of the dangers of a “trial by the media” if they did not take action themselves. That trial is now underway; the verdict from most quarters is in; only the sentence is still uncertain.

[LaiSteve66]

The less neo-cons in positions of power, the better.

[didu]

The less neo-cons in positions of power, the better.

Really? You think a US government full of liberals are going to make this world a much better place?

[haplesshobo]

The WB ethics committee essentially screwed-up by letting Wolfy decide more of his girlfriend's fate than he should have. And then says --

Oh come on, the ethics committe screwed up more than that. They were the ones that didn't let Wolfowitz recuse himself from this matter, told him that his girlfriend needed to be reassigned, and then told him that he should also give her a promotion because of how disruptive this was to her career. And, so he ended up giving her a raise that would have ended up paying her less than if she hadn't been forced to transfer from the World Bank. They order him to do something, and when he does it, then its unacceptable? The ethics committee had no problems with this when they reviewed the matter last year, but this year, its a problem? This is one of those manufactured dramas.

[Faithless]

Oh come on, the ethics committe screwed up more than that. They were the ones that didn't let Wolfowitz recuse himself from this matter, told him that his girlfriend needed to be reassigned, and then told him that he should also give her a promotion because of how disruptive this was to her career. And, so he ended up giving her a raise that would have ended up paying her less than if she hadn't been forced to transfer from the World Bank. They order him to do something, and when he does it, then its unacceptable? The ethics committee had no problems with this when they reviewed the matter last year, but this year, its a problem? This is one of those manufactured dramas.
Okay, I'm with you.

Wolfie should go. And the WB ethics committee should be replaced. Win win.

[haplesshobo]

Is it just me, or are these british papers pretty crappy for information? I've seen enough links from the british where they leave out critical information that I don't really trust them.

Okay, I'm with you.

Wolfie should go. And the WB ethics committee should be replaced. Win win.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq and didn't think Wolfowitz should have been appointed to the World Bank because of that, but I oppose tearing somebody down and forcing them on trumped up, manufactured drama. If people actually bothered to read the evidence concerning this case, it would be difficult to make an argument as to why Wolfowitz should be fired for this alleged corruption. Every step of the way, Wolfowitz was following the orders of the Ethics committe- they told him he couldn't recuse himself, that his girlfriend needed to be transferred, and that since that was unfair to the girlfriend, she should be given a raise as compensation. The Ethics Committee had told Wolfowitz "the potential disruption of the staff member's career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion on the basis of her qualifying record."

This is a very, very dangerous tool to unleash on the political process, where we are bascially advocating setting up people and framing them for other perceived sins. Keep in mind, that this tactic could be easily be applied to politicians you admire. Should Gavin Newsom,the mayor of SF, have to step down because of his affair with his friend's wife who also happened to be working in Newsom's office? When Newsom had an affair, does this invalidate his work and support for legalizing gay marriages?

[Faithless]

Why do his employees want to see him leave?

Are they buying into the drama, or are they seeing something else that is legit?

[haplesshobo]

Why do his employees want to see him leave?

Are they buying into the drama, or are they seeing something else that is legit?

From the very beginning, the employees opposed Wolfowitz's appointment because of his involvement with Iraq. That's why I've said that this whole thing is really more about Iraq than corruption. If you had sent in Rumsfeld or Cheney to run the World Bank, those employees would have wanted to seem them leave as well. Also, no entrenched buearacry is ever happy with reform or accountability or change.

These employees understand this whole sturn und drang is bogus with the exculpatorty evidence that's been released but this drama was something convenient for them to latch onto. Allegations of sex and corruption are going to attract media attention, no matter how bogus. If they could have used something else to railroad him, they would have done that too no matter if Wolfowitz was ultimately innocent in whatever they charged him with.

I don't like Wolfowitz even though I think he was correct about the need to try to fight corruption as it undermines third world economies. But, this is ridiculous when he's getting railroaded on what everybody understands to be trumped up charges. Its a dangerous tactic to unleash as it can quickly get out of hand, and be used on both politicians you detest and admire.

[Faithless]

You know, that's fine that you feel for the guy.

He's a snake. And that's how you take out a snake.

It's not like they were taking out an immensely qualified dude for the job. So, it's not big loss to the WB.

[haplesshobo]

It's not like they were taking out an immensely qualified dude for the job. So, it's not big loss to the WB.

And, how exactly was he unqualified for the job? He was a controversial and unpopular pick because of Iraq, not necessairly because he was deemed to be unqualified for the position.

Let's just review his CV:

Won a full scholarship to Cornell for undergrad, got his PhD from University of Chicago, taught at Yale, worked at Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs, was State Department Director of Policy Planning, was State Department Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affair, was Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia, was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, was Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins, and then
was Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Compare that to his predecssor at the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, who had been appointed by President Clinton. Wolfensohn got an MBA from Harvard, was a managing director and senior executive at several I-banking firms, and did some charity work on the side.

Geez, all these pesky facts keep getting in the way.

You know, that's fine that you feel for the guy.

He's a snake. And that's how you take out a snake.

I'm opposed, on principle, to the idea of railroading and framing somebody on trumped up charges irregardless of how I feel about that particular person.

Basically, you're saying that the ends justify the means where its okay to frame somebody for the greater good. At least, you're being honest.

Let's carry your ideas to their logical conclusion then. The police should start framing suspects and planting evidence on them, irregardless if the suspects are guilty are not. Let's start planting kiddie porn on computers of politicians you oppose, and force them out by denouncing them as pedophilles. It might work for awhile as it sweeps all your hated politicians out of office, but soon it gets out of control and soon your own favorite politicians get taken down by similar tactics. Barack Obama rapes underage, white girls!! After all, Barack wasn't an immensly qualified guy for the job so its no big loss. :wink:

[Faithless]

He was the Bush's boy. A crony pick. You don't need much qualification for that.

In ready your CV paragraph, I didn't see anything that qualified him for banking.

The fact is, Wofo (rhymes with Mofo) needed some place to land after bumbling around with Iraq. Out pops the WB position. Choice!

He wasn't railroaded. I think he'd just as much ass fuck you as well as accept your bleeding heart for him.

[LaiSteve66]

Really? You think a US government full of liberals are going to make this world a much better place?

Not every non-Neo-Con is a "liberal". In addition, I'm not interested in making the world a better place, not that neo-cons can actually do that with their convoluted worldview.

[haplesshobo]

He was the Bush's boy. A crony pick. You don't need much qualification for that.

In ready your CV paragraph, I didn't see anything that qualified him for banking.

And, there have been several other WB presidents in the past who didn't have previous banking experience either. Plus, just because somebody has experience in banking doesn't necessairly mean they have experience with the developmental loans the World Bank specializes in. That doesn't mean those presidents should have been humilated and forced out on charges that everybody understood to be untrue. I wouldn't support falsely accusing somebody of pedophillia just to get them out of office.

I don't necessairly see how good relations with the POTUS should prevent somebody from being appointed to the World Bank since the US is the largest shareholder in the World Bank. Assuming a person is qualified, why should a friend of President Clinton be prevented from being appointed to the World Bank because of his relationship to Clinton. If anything, a good relationship with the POTUS is a positive because it means more support from the largest shareholder in the World Bank.


He wasn't railroaded. I think he'd just as much ass fuck you as well as accept your bleeding heart for him.

What else do you call it when you're going to convict somebody on trumped up charges?

I don't support show trials and trumped up charges because:

1) Its not the right thing to do
2) It unleashes a ugly, dangerous tactic that can be applied to both parties and coarsens our political process.

Like I pointed out earlier, Gavin Newsome has had an relationship with an employee of his, who also happened to be his friend's wife. Does that mean he should be forced out of office? Barack Obama doesn't seem to have enough experience for the Presidency, but I wouldn't support people making up allegations to try to kick him out of office.

I wait for the evidence to unfold, and then make my decision. I'm trying to hold an intellectual debate here, and you respond by "ass fuck you".

[haplesshobo]

I don't think Wolfowitz will ultimately survive this, even if he's ultimately proven to be innocent of these charges. Probably too bad, as he was actually trying to implement reform into an organization that badly needed it. His connection with Iraq and his attempts to reform the World Bank had doomed him from the very beginning even though experts recognize that the World Bank needs to be reformed.

The problem with the World Bank is that its more concerned with loaning as much money as it can, where staffers are judged on how quickly they can process loans and not whether or not how succesful those loans prove to be. From a structural point of view, the problem is that half of the board consists of the countries that are borrowing the money and that those directors' job is to get as much money as they can for their country. So, of course, no borrower country is going to veto or reject a loan no matter how ill-advised or ineffective or wasteful. And, the borrower countries then scratch each others backs, where they vote for each others loans.

Some people have estimated that up to a 100 Billion dollars has been wasted becuase of this. Imagine if that money had been actually used effectively instead of squirrled away to some despot's secret swiss account and how many people that would have helped. But, hey, all that matters was that old scores were settled.

[Faithless]

If we had our way, we'd get rid of him right away. That wouldn't have cost whatever the real figure is. Fire for cause and be done with it.

I see there are new questions as to whether Shaha really deserved her pay increases, considering that the HR boards did reject some past attempts to promote her (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=192571).

Whether or not she made it to the final short list--Bank officials have different recollections--she was no shoe-in for the promotion. Two years earlier, Jean-Louis Sarbib, then the vice president for the Middle East region, had proposed Riza for a similar position, and the human resources board had rejected her. The board noted, according to a report made available to The Nation, that Sarbib should have sought other applicants for the position, that Riza "needs to establish herself as a communications professional," and that she should not receive a "promotion through the backdoor." Riza did not meet the minimum job qualifications: an advanced degree in communications and 15 years of experience. She was a gender specialist at the Bank--a well-known Arab feminist-- who had done communications work for only a few years.

[Yeahman]

I haven't weighed in on this because, frankly, I don't give a shit if he stays or goes. This doesn't reach the level of "scandal" in my book.

I do believe in resignation without wrong-doing if criticism reaches the point where the official can't carrying out his duties effectively. I don't think Wolfowitz is at that point yet and with less than 2 years left in the Bush presidency, most appointees serving at the pleasure should be able to hang on, especially when it comes to a position that most Americans don't even know exists.

[raacluse]

further nuances to the controversy over Wolfowitz... It's not just his Iraq war advocacy and his personnel actions with regard to his girlfriend... it's also his personnel management actions, of bringing in a coterie of assistants and deputies, who rode roughshod over World Bank processes and philosophies:

(from Wash. Post, 10 May)

"Wolfowitz started at the World Bank with a lot of good will, and a person close to Bush was what the World Bank needed," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform in London.

"The problem started before this business with his girlfriend," he said. "It was the way he ran the bank and the way he brought in a fleet of ideological sympathizers to work there that created ill will, and his girlfriend was the last straw. The World Bank can't credibly criticize countries for improper behavior if it is not squeaky clean itself."

Meanwhile, maybe the silver lining in this cloud of controversy is broader public debate of the effectiveness of WB and IMF policies. How much do the projects they fund benefit the people of those countries, as opposed to large companies or government elite?

[power puff girl]

I wouldn't support falsely accusing somebody of pedophillia just to get them out of office.


i'll support anything that will bring down wolfie; his hands are stained with the blood of millions of people. we all know he's guilty, so it doesn't matter to me how he's taken down. additionally, he should have never been appointed by our illegitimate president in the first place.

i just hope he's not able to get away by finding some legal loophole with the help of some connected lawyer, in the same way those duke lacrosse players were able to buy their freedom.

[power puff girl]

now, that we finally forced out wolfie, why hasn't gonzales done the right thing and stepped down in disgrace as well. when aschroft, on his death bed has to be the voice of moderation, you know gonzales is just up to no good.

[Faithless]

...
I don't think Wolfowitz is at that point yet and with less than 2 years left in the Bush presidency, most appointees serving at the pleasure should be able to hang on, especially when it comes to a position that most Americans don't even know exists.
Sounds like Wolfie was pushed-out like a piece of crap stuck in some bowels, yo.

[Yeahman]

I bet most American STILL don't know what happened. The international pressure, justified or not, made it impossible for him to continue. He had to resign.

[yoMAMA]

The international pressure, justified or not, made it impossible for him to continue. He had to resign.



pw at 3rd world official: you need to clean up corruption, eliminate cronyism, and govern transparently.

Corrupt 3rd world official: of course Paul! You da man!

btw...how's your girlfriend doing? Tell her I say hi.

[Faithless]

Now that he's out of power, do you think he'll still get some? :mad:

[haplesshobo]

Meanwhile, maybe the silver lining in this cloud of controversy is broader public debate of the effectiveness of WB and IMF policies. How much do the projects they fund benefit the people of those countries, as opposed to large companies or government elite?

I think Wolfowitz's outser ultimately entrenches and calcifies WB policies, no matter how ineffective they may be. For one thing, it sends a clear message to any other potential reformers that they will be brought down if they dare rock the boat. Imagine yourself in the shoes of a WB employee. You've climbed the ladder playing by a certain set of rules, and you've grown comfortable with those rules. Now, if a reformer came along and changed the rules as to how you were evaluated, you would feel threatened by that. You knew how to game the previous system to make yourself look good, and you have no gurantees you can do the same with these new rules.

Ultimately, to get real reform, you'd probably have to remove the lendee countries from the board. Under the current system, its like the inmates running the prison where you have the countries that are asking for the money also get to decide if they get the money.

I bet most American STILL don't know what happened. The international pressure, justified or not, made it impossible for him to continue. He had to resign.

The problem is that Americans just look at the headlines, if at all, and don't read the full article underneath the headline. Otherwise, they would have read in the american articles how this matter was really less about corruption and more a proxy for other issues and that there was evidence that exonerated Wolfowitz in this matter.

Of course, there is also a minority of Americans who actually listen to the media, but there's an increasing segmentation where people follow media that they know will just re-affirm their views. Today, people just drink the kool-aid and can't acknoweldge anything that actually challenges their views.

[haplesshobo]

He wasn't railroaded. I think he'd just as much ass fuck you as well as accept your bleeding heart for him.

I've noticed a real disconnect in some of your posts. On one hand, you've rather forcefully argued for greater rights for homosexuals. Yet, at the same time, when you want to attack or slur somebody, you also traffic in negative homosexual imagery where you're saying somebody is gay as if that's the worst thing a person can be. Just curious as to why you do this.

[Faithless]

There seems to be a disconnect, here. What is the homosexual imagery?

Ass fucking is for your enjoyment too, if it's done consensually.

But I think what Wolfie is about is the non-consensual act.

That is, unless, you'd willing submit to a Wolfie ass-fucking, which I think so many Americans did in going for the Iraq war. :frown:

Speaking of which, apparently there will be no more ass fucking for Wolfie of Shaha, as I understand they are splitsville. So much for office romances.

[haplesshobo]

Geez, now that the coast is clear, Wijffels admits that the WB didn't bring down Wolfowitz over corruption. I should file this tactic in my head if I ever need to take somebody out over some other issue.

But, if they really wanted Wolfowitz out, they really should have accused him of lining his own pockets as that could have forced him and further damaged his reputation. Imagine the outrage. Architect of Iraq Invasion lining his own pockets at the expense of the poor in Africa! :biggrin:

If Wolfowitz really deserved to be forced out for something, why not charge him with that instead of latching onto what everybody understood to be a false charge. Methinks that what they wanted him out for wasn't really bad enough to force him out so they just used whatever charge would even if that charge was false. All this intrigue makes me miss the MUN.

There seems to be a disconnect, here. What is the homosexual imagery?

Ass fucking is for your enjoyment too, if it's done consensually.


Well, when you refer to 'ass fucking' between two men, that's generally understood to be referring to be homosexuality. There seems to be an underlying homophobia in that when you want to slur somebody, you portray them in engaging in homosexual relationships.

[Faithless]

Wolfie is old news, now.

The next target to get out of the WB is Zoellick, another Bush crony and PNAC'er.

Why didn't they just give the post to Blair?

[haplesshobo]

Wolfie is old news, now.

The next target to get out of the WB is Zoellick, another Bush crony and PNAC'er.


But, wait a minute.

Earlier, in this thread, you said:


It's not like they were taking out an immensely qualified dude [Wolfowitz] for the job. So, it's not big loss to the WB.


because

I didn't see anything that qualified him [Wolfowitz] for banking.

Now, what trumped up charges are you going to level at Zoellick? The guy has the banking experience that you felt that made Wolfowitz unqualified for the job. Or, were you just searching for any excuse, including trumped up charges, to get rid of him?

Oh well, now you can target Folsom, whom many in the World Bank wanted to see leave just like they wanted Wolfowitz gone. But, wait, she's been vindicated by the report by outside exports, despite trumped up charges by World Bank employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/washington/13worldbank.html



The anticorruption drive led by Paul D. Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank, which shook the institution and contributed to his downfall, remains hampered by weak management, internal distrust and employee resistance to combating fraud, a panel of outside experts concluded Wednesday.

Many bank employees charged that under Ms. Folsom, the anticorruption campaign was waged selectively and unfairly against employees and countries and that it was intended to carry out the agenda of a conservative Republican distrustful of the bank’s mission.

Supporters of Ms. Folsom said, on the other hand, that they had been constantly stymied by bank employees who saw corruption as minor and as an acceptable cost of doing business in poorly governed countries.

In the interview, Mr. Volcker said he and his investigators had found no evidence that the bank acted in favor of or against any country based on political motivations. “These questions of bias and so forth, we’ve found no substantiation of them,” he said.

A major question left by the report, especially among the bank’s 10,000 employees, was the future of Ms. Folsom’s leadership. Top aides to Mr. Wolfowitz have left the bank, and many bank employees have openly hoped that Ms. Folsom will follow.

But the report praised the operation of the integrity unit, and implicitly the performance of its director. Going further, Mr. Volcker said in the interview that she had done an outstanding job and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge that she had exhibited favoritism.

Mr. Zoellick also said he had no intention of removing Ms. Folsom, and Ms. Folsom, a lawyer with experience in corporate ethics matters, issued a statement praising the Volcker report and said she would not resign. “I am dedicated to the work of this department and the mission of the institution,” she said.

However, two people close to Ms. Folsom said that after the battles over Mr. Wolfowitz, and after being vindicated by the Volcker report, they would not be surprised if she left this year.

The panel also recommended that the integrity unit discontinue investigations into sexual harassment — Mr. Volcker said it was a “chronic problem” at the bank — and other forms of personal misconduct, which it said had been a distraction and a focus of bitterness among bank employees. These charges should be investigated by a unit in the human resources division, the report said.