
World Bank 2d try at ranking economies for investors also lacking
That followed an independent investigation that found World Bank officials had manipulated the rankings to favor powerful countries, including China and Saudi Arabia. The scandal raised serious concerns about the use of global benchmarks to shape development policy.
Now, the bank is trying again. In October 2024, it launched its newest flagship report, Business Ready. The 2025 spring meeting of the World Bank and its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, mark the first time the report will be formally presented to delegates as part of the institutions' high-level agenda.
Nicknamed B-READY, the report aims to evaluate business environments through more transparent data. This time, the annual assessment has a broader ambition: to go beyond laws and efficiency and also measure social inclusion, environmental sustainability and public service delivery.
As experts on international organizations, law and development, we have given B-READY a closer look. While we appreciate that a global assessment of the economic health of countries through data collection and participation of private stakeholders is a worthwhile endeavor, we worry that the World Bank's latest effort risks recreating many of the same flaws that plagued its predecessor.
To understand what's at stake, it's worth recalling what the Doing Business index measured. From 2003 to 2021, the flagship report was used by governments, investors and World Bank officials alike to assess the business environment of any given country. It ranked countries based on how easy it was to start and run a business in each of 190 economies.
In prioritizing that as its marker, the index often celebrated reforms that stripped away labor protections, environmental safeguards and corporate taxes in the name of greater 'efficiency' of common law versus civil law jurisdictions.
As economist Joseph E. Stiglitz argued in 2021, from its creation the Doing Business index reflected the values of the so-called Washington Consensus − a development model rooted in deregulation, privatization and market liberalization.
Critics warned for years that the Doing Business index encouraged a global 'race to the bottom.' Countries competed to improve their rankings, often by adopting symbolic legal reforms with little real impact.
In some cases, internal data manipulation at the World Bank penalized governments that did not appear sufficiently business-friendly. These structural flaws − and the political pressures behind them − ultimately led to the project's demise in 2021.
B-READY is the World Bank's attempt to regain credibility after the Doing Business scandal. In recent years, there has been both internal and external pressure to create a successor − and B-READY responds to that demand while aiming to fix the methodological flaws.
In theory, while it retains a focus on the business environment, B-READY shifts away from a narrow deregulatory logic and instead seeks to capture how regulations interact with infrastructure, services and equity considerations.
B-READY, which in the pilot stage covers a mix of 50 countries, does not rank countries with a single score. Rather, it provides more accurate data across 10 topics grouped into three pillars: regulatory framework, public services and operational efficiency. The report also introduces new themes such as digital access, environmental sustainability and gender equity.
Unlike the Doing Business index, B-READY publishes its full methodology and makes its data publicly available.
On the surface, this looks like progress. But a criticism of B-READY is that, in practice, the changes offer only a more fragmented ranking system — one that is harder to interpret and still shaped by the same investor-driven macroeconomic assumptions.
In our view, the framework continues to reflect a narrow view of what constitutes a healthy legal and economic system, not just for investors but for society as a whole.
A key concern is how B-READY handles labor standards. The report relies on two main data sources: expert consultations and firm-level surveys.
For assessing labor and social security regulations, the World Bank consults lawyers with expertise in each country. But when it comes to how these laws function in practice, the report relies on surveys that ask businesses whether labor costs, dismissal protections and public services are 'burdens.'
This approach captures the employer's perspective, but leaves out workers' experiences and the real impact on labor rights. In some cases, the scoring system even rewards weaker protections. For example, countries are encouraged to have a minimum-wage law on the books − but are penalized if the wage is 'too high' relative to gross domestic product per capita. This creates pressure to keep wages low in order to appear competitive. And while that might be good news for international companies seeking to reduce their labor costs, it isn't necessarily good for the local workforce or a country's economic well-being.
According to the International Trade Union Confederation, this approach risks encouraging symbolic reforms while doing little to protect workers. Georgia, for example, ranks near the top of the B-READY labor assessment, despite not having updated its minimum wage since 1999 and setting it below the subsistence level.
Another troubling area, to us as comparative law experts, is how B-READY evaluates legal issues. It measures how quickly commercial courts resolve disputes but ignores judicial independence or respect for the rule of law. As a result, countries such as Hungary and Georgia, which have been widely criticized for democratic backsliding and the erosion of the rule of law, score surprisingly high. Not coincidentally, both governments have already used these scores for propaganda and political gain.
This reflects a deeper problem, we believe. B-READY treats the legal system primarily as a means to attract investment, not as a framework for public accountability. It assumes that making life easier for businesses will automatically benefit everyone. But that assumption risks ignoring the people most affected by these laws and institutions − workers, communities and civil society groups.
B-READY introduces greater transparency and public data − and that, for sure, is a step up from its predecessor. But in our opinion it still reflects a narrow view of what a 'good' legal system looks like: one that might deliver efficiency for firms but not necessarily justice or equity for society.
Whether B-Ready becomes a tool for meaningful reform − or just another scoreboard for deregulation − will depend on the World Bank's willingness to confront its long-standing biases and listen to its critics.
Fernanda G Nicola is a professor of Law at American University and Dhaisy Paredes Guzman is a research assistant at American University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Standard
21 hours ago
- The Standard
Bessent to meet with Fed candidates around Labor Day to winnow list
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent takes questions from reporters at the Institute of International Finance (IIF) Global Outlook Forum on sidelines of the IMF and World Bank?? 2025 annual Spring Meetings in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 23, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz


AllAfrica
6 days ago
- AllAfrica
US foreign policy's long been transactional – but not like Trump's
The US president, Donald Trump, watched on recently as the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan shook hands in the White House. They had just signed what Trump called a 'peace deal' to end nearly four decades of conflict. The deal grants the US exclusive rights to develop a transit corridor through southern Armenia, linking Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan. The White House says the corridor will be named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. Trump has positioned the US as the guarantor of security in the South Caucasus, packaging this as a commercial opportunity for American companies. This exemplifies what researchers call transactional foreign policy, a strategy that offers rewards or threatens costs to get others to act rather than persuading them through shared values. US presidents have long mixed economic incentives with diplomacy. But Trump's approach represents something very different. It's a foreign policy that operates outside institutional constraints and targets democratic allies. It exploits American power for personal gain in ways no previous president has attempted. US presidents have commonly used transactional approaches in their foreign policy. In the early 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt promised to protect Latin American governments from internal rebels and external European intervention to ensure debt payments to American bankers. This sometimes required the US military to take control of customs houses, as happened in the Dominican Republic in 1905 and Cuba in 1906. Presidents Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge ordered similar military interventions in Nicaragua in 1911, Honduras in 1911 and 1912, Haiti in 1915 and Panama in 1926. In the mid-20th century, presidents Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy innovated foreign aid policy in an attempt to dampen the appeal of communism. They did so specifically through land reform policies. American officials viewed rural poverty in developing countries as fertile ground for communist recruitment during the Cold War. So US aid was used to promote food price stabilisation and facilitate land distribution. Around the same time, Dwight Eisenhower applied financial pressure on the UK during the 1956 Suez crisis. Britain and France, coordinating with Israel, invaded Egypt to retake the critical Suez Canal waterway after it was nationalised. The US blocked British access to financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to force the withdrawal of its troops. More recently, Barack Obama's 2015 Iran nuclear deal bundled sanctions relief with nuclear limits. And Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, coupled export controls with subsidies and tax credits to pull allies into a shared tech-security posture. As a result, Japan and the Netherlands limited the sale of semiconductor equipment to China. The Armenia-Azerbaijan peace negotiations also began under the Biden administration. It is not hard to imagine that a similar deal, without the Trump branding, would have occurred under a Kamala Harris presidency. Trump's undemocratic approach While a transactional approach isn't unique in American foreign policy, Trump's strategy marks a shift. Particularly in his second term, it resembles that of a typical authoritarian leader. Trump is carrying out his approach with minimal congressional or judicial constraint, with policies shaped by personal whims rather than institutional consistency. This manifests in four key ways. First, Trump operates outside international and domestic legal frameworks. His tariff policies, for example, probably violate international and US domestic laws. Second, Trump systematically targets democratic allies while embracing authoritarian partners. The US has had strained relationships with its allies before. But there has never been this level of animosity towards them. Trump has threatened to annex Canada, while praising authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Viktor Orban and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Third, Trump prioritizes domestic political enemies over traditional foreign adversaries. He has gutted institutions that he views as politically hostile, like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department. He has even deployed federal forces in US cities under dubious legal reasoning. And fourth, Trump exploits American foreign policy for personal gain in ways no previous US president has attempted. He receives more gifts from foreign governments, including a US$400 million Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar. The jet was expected to serve as Air Force One during his presidency, but was transferred to Trump's presidential library foundation. Trump's own company, the Trump Organization, has also signed deals to build luxury towers in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. And Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner secured US$2 billion from Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund just six months after leaving the White House. Kushner has denied that the investment represented a conflict of interest. Authoritarian approaches lead to authoritarian outcomes. Research consistently shows that authoritarian systems produce weaker alliances, underinvestment in public goods and non-credible promises. They also decrease state capacity as professional institutions are hollowed out in favour of personal loyalty networks. Trump's weakening of career diplomatic services and development agencies sacrifices institutional competence for direct presidential control. This undermines the very capabilities needed to implement international agreements effectively. Trump's style further encourages flattery over mutual interests. The naming of the Armenian transit corridor mirrors earlier examples: Poland's 2018 proposal for a US military base named 'Fort Trump', foreign nominations for a Nobel peace prize and overt flattery at diplomatic meetings. These are all designed to sway a leader with personal praise rather than emphasising American interests. Previous US presidents usually embedded transactional bargains within larger institutional projects such as NATO, the IMF, non-proliferation regimes or the liberal trade system. While those arrangements disproportionately benefited the US, they also produced global gains. Trump's deals may yield benefit. The Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement, for instance, could reduce the risk of conflict and unlock trade in the South Caucasus. But his approach represents a fundamentally different kind of American leadership – one that is undemocratic. Patrick E Shea is senior lecturer in international relations and global governance, University of Glasgow This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


South China Morning Post
10-08-2025
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong restaurants to remain in ‘survival of the fittest' mode, analysts say
Tenant churn in retail properties in Hong Kong will continue in coming months, as prominent restaurants close but affordable eateries and fast-food chains thrive amid economic uncertainty and job insecurity among local residents, analysts said. Advertisement Hong Kong's food and beverage (F&B) operators have taken a hit during the ongoing economic slump, which shrank retail sales for 14 straight months before a 2.4 per cent rebound in May and a 0.7 per cent gain in June, according to official data. The city had 17,154 restaurant licences as of April 30, 255 fewer than a year earlier, according to data published by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. A comparison of licence data showed that 2,034 restaurants closed in the past year, while 1,779 new licences were issued. Hong Kong's jobless rate remained at 3.5 per cent between April and June, unchanged from the previous quarter, which marked a 30-month high, according to the latest government data. 'The F&B segment is undergoing a reset and a survival-of-the-fittest process,' said Cathie Chung, senior director of research at JLL in Hong Kong. 'We expect new openings and closures will continue to hit news headlines in the coming 12 months.' Advertisement The trend towards affordable options reflects an overall consumption downgrade and a 'conscious consumption' movement in many parts of the world amid economic uncertainty and job insecurity, she added.