Talk:World Institute for Development Economics Research

Scandal Section
I think the scandal section might need to be rewritten if we are to retain it. In particular I think we might have to be more clear in attributing these claims to sources.
 * "By 1993 information about careless use of funds and outright abuses in WIDER had received wide publicity in Finland."
 * Is this just these two source or are there more?


 *  "Lal Jayawardena, the first director of WIDER, ruled the institute with a corrupt hand constantly drawing money for various personal expenses."
 * Which source says this and had this better be as a quote?


 * "The rent for the office space was excessive due to unused space, foreign researchers received funding for expensive studies while the millions of marks meant for domestic ones went missing with no explanation. Money was moved around through criminal and shady banks and foundations (BCCI, Sasakawa)."
 * Which source says this and had this better be as a quote?


 *  "An estimate for the taxpayer money burned during the corrupt reign was over 300 million marks."
 * Whose estimate is this and is "burned" a bit too journalistic?

Any thoughts? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Sorry for the late answer. I haven't yet got full access to the digital archive of the Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, where this information was originally presented. In the mean time, you can see a little preview and verify by Google translate or something:
 * http://www.hs.fi/arkisto/haku?pageNumber=2&free=jayawardena&date=1990&advancedSearch=
 * For example:
 * ''HS - Kotimaa - 1.9.1992 - 4200 merkkiä - 1. painos


 * Ulkoministeriössä on paljastunut kaksi uutta järjestelyä, joilla on kanavoitu rahaa YK:n alaiselle Wider-instituutille ohi eduskunnan. Jo aiemmin on käynyt ilmi, että ulkoministeriö on kierrättänyt kymmeniä miljoonia markkoja Wider-instituutille japanilaisen Sasakawa-säätiön kautta. Vasta paljastuneessa operaatiossa Suomi maksoi 1988 Widerille suoraan 9,5 miljoonaa markkaa ylimääräistä rahaa. Lisäksi Suomi tuki Ruotsissa toimivaa YK-instituuttia, jonka ansiosta Ruotsi tilitti Widerille liki 1. . . 


 * ''HS - Sunnuntai - 22.8.1993 - 5444 merkkiä - 1. painos


 * YK:n alainen Wider-instituutti on noussut äkkiä astaloksi, jolla presidenttiehdokkaat huitelevat toisiaan. Iskut ovat näihin päiviin asti osuneet ilmaan, sillä kellään ei ole ollut selvää näyttöä kilpakumppanejaan vastaan. Wider on kehitysmaataloutta tutkiva instituutti Helsingissä. Sitä on on hoidettu tehottomasti ja korruptoituneesti - kuten koko YK:ta. Suomalaiset ovat sijoittaneet Wideriin peruspääomaksi ja muuhun kulutukseen vajaat 300 miljoonaa markkaa, mutta instituutin päätehtävä -. . .

Suahili (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I started to construct a more complete page on the Wider because it seemed a bit weird that the only thing written about it was how it was perceived in Finland in the mid 80s. The relevance of the institute is definitely somewhere else. I think that the controversy is an important historical point about that also explains a lot of the institutional structure today, but what Suahili had written in it was not about Wider at all but about mr. Ahtisaari and mr. Bassin. After looking at the sources and reading on the controversies of that time I think the evidence seems to suggest that there was a lot of political play with Wider that related to the presidential ambitions of Ahtisaari and Paavo Väyrynen. All these issues should be found on the pages of Ahtisaari, Väyrynen, Bassin etc., rather than Wider's page. Furthermore, I doubt that newspaper stories that are written as the story progresses should be used as the primary source for the writing of the controversy part. There are some very good, Finnish language, articles written in the 90s that give quite a balanced narration of this whole thing. On the topic of Wider's finances I think it has some merit in the history section, but truthfully without rumors and inflammatory language. The point is that this page should offer an overview of a development economics institute and that should be the focus. In relation to the Since its establishment it has earned a reputation as one of the world´s leading research institutes on development economics [1] and it counts amongst its researchers and associates many Nobel Laureates, Prize Winners and other world renowned experts[2]. - sentence, it was backed up by two references which now stand alone apart from the main text as that was deleted. The claim that it has become one of the leading research institutes in development economics was a reference to Wider being ranked the 7th best economics think tank in the world by UPenn (fuzzy on the details now as I can not open their page). The second link was just from Widers own page listing those "renowned" people. Anyways, I look forward to us coming up with a page that all of us find useful and purposeful. Sorry for the overly long outpour. --LPU0302 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPU0302 (talk • contribs)


 * You talk about Ahtisaari and Bassin, but the controversy was clearly about Lal Jayawardena. There was some political play (Väyrynen writing reservedly about the matter in his 1993 book), but this would have been impossible without the very real corruption that went on for years. Of course Väyrynen wanted to save face after rooting for WIDER in the 1980s. Kankaanniemi also hurried to issue an enigmatic statement in his book trying to cast doubt over just about anybody but himself, even though he had contributed to the mess around the naming of a new head of accounting.
 * Why shouldn't there be references to reports from 1991, 1992 and 1993? As can be seen from the 1995 article, there was no "progress" scandal-wise after Jayawardena left. In the 1995 article MFA is quoted as giving the statement: "Problems like those in the time of Jayawardena don't exist anymore." Can you list the articles you mention as giving a balanced narration of the matter? I would also like you to point out the rumors and inflammatory language in my removed version. Suahili (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this: there will be a new article "Corruption in the UN", which will contain all the details of the WIDER case. Can I trust this article will be protected from deletion and spin doctoring? Suahili (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think we disagree that there should be a mention on the crisis during the adjustment period of 1985-1991. Issues relating to Jayawardena should be mentioned. I think it is also interesting from the political history of Finland perpective to know the role Wider played in the election of 1994. Although a book could be written about all of this we should remember that this page is for those looking for information on UNU-WIDER.
 * There are a lot of articles. I feel a bit silly on this since I have started to dig up the books and newspaper articles you have mentioned, I have also found many others where many quotes and opinions would be relevant to this case. (Btw. I noticed you took away the reference to "Vihrä Lanka" which had a damning article about this issue. Especially the motivations of Mr. and Mrs. Bassin were questioned in it.)Do you have access to the Suomen Kuvalehti issue 45 (12.11.1993)?
 * Re: Vihreä Lanka and Suomen Kuvalehti - I have to take a look at them at a university library or somewhere. Suahili (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ''Examples of rumours and inflamatory language:

- Finally, in February 1993 Helsingin Sanomat published an extensive article in its monthly supplement about the fishy things related to WIDER entitled ”The Costly Prince”. Finland had spent 100 million dollars (present-day exchange rate) on WIDER at the time the article was published. The Sri Lankan director Lal Jayawardena had hired a large part of the researchers from South Asia, some of them friends of his or his wife's. The director also constantly drew money for personal expenses or the expenses of his relatives. --> do we have something else than the local newspapers suplement on these issues? Have they been substantiated? Inflamatory --> "fishy"'' '''Also I had a problem with this part of the "original" scandal section: Money was moved around through criminal and shady banks and foundations (BCCI, Sasakawa). An estimate for the taxpayer money burned during the corrupt reign was over 300 million marks --> The first part can be true, but for example the Sasakawa foundation still exists. So some proof that they are CRIMINAL and SHADY would be good. The second part you use inflamatory language stating that there was a "corrupt reign" and reference one book with questionable reputation to claim that 300 million marks of the Finnish tax payer money had been "burned" (what ever that means. How much was their budget then? How much of the budget was for research? What does burned mean?)'''
 * ''About the role of MFA, Ahtisaari, Bassin, Kankaanniemi & al.:

Are these not issues about the Ministry for Foreign Affairs rather than Wider (or the UN)? - The institute operated in rented offices, which were meant to be temporary, had lots of unused space and a yearly cost of about 1 million USD (present-day exchange rate) - In 1992 the Finnish press puzzled over peculiar recirculations of money, which involved Finland giving funds to the Swedish World Maritime University and later to the Scandinavia-Japan Sasakawa Foundation on the condition that they agree to fund WIDER. The criminal Bank of Credit and Commerce International was a backer alongside Finland in a Sasakawa project targeting Africa. Political journalists also regarded as suspicious the extra funds arranged at short notice by the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. --> in relation to this should we not mention also that later the host country agreement was amended so that Wider can now invest its funds abroad too. (inflamatory: "peculiar", the institue had lots of unused space [was it not MFA who put them there?], "criminal BCCI" [calling someone criminal is serious, please refer to a conviction on a crime]) -One person trying to hamper the investigation of WIDER's finances was Martti Ahtisaari, who had been a staunch supporter of WIDER and Jayawardena from the very beginning. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs Paavo Väyrynen and the former head of Department for Development Policy Benjamin Bassin said Ahtisaari appealed to them to stop the investigations. Ahtisaari pressed for his own candidate for the head of accounting in WIDER against the stance of the MFA. --> this bit is besically about Ahtisaari and words against him by Bassin and Väyrynen. I do not doubt that Ahtisaari was involved in these things, but I do not see how this is relevant to this page. FURTHERMORE, here it should be mentioned that Finland was never given the right to do a revision of the Wider accounts as it is a diplomatic service in Finland. The UN, as a rule, does not permit this. You might think this is proof of corruption, I would say that it is important that no country can individually pressure or control UN organisations, but it all goes through the General Assembly. -In the book Operaatio Ahtisaari (1993) by Pentti Sainio, Benjamin Bassin and his wife reveal details of a dinner discussion with Ahtisaari in 1990:
 * - Ahtisaari, angrily: ”Don't touch it! There's nothing wrong with WIDER. Jayawardena is doing a fine job. WIDER is a success for the UN”
 * - Ahtisaari, angrily: ”Don't touch it! There's nothing wrong with WIDER. Jayawardena is doing a fine job. WIDER is a success for the UN”
 * - Bassin: ”But I've got facts”
 * - Ahtisaari: ”I'm not interested in facts”
 * - Bassin:”Why?”
 * - Ahtisaari: ”People in the UN are used to a little corruption. There are bigger scandals in the UN”
 * - Bassin: ”I'm not following you. And I don't care what happens elsewhere. This is Helsinki, this a matter of the Finns”
 * - Ahtisaari: ”If you touch it, it will blow up in your face”
 * - Bassin: ”How?”
 * - Ahtisaari: ”I've met some friends of Jayawardena in New York, they are vicious people”

This section to me seems to have the least to do with Wider. But I get now that you want to establish that Jayawardena was a dubious character. I still do not see how this is important information. This could go on his Wikipeadia page. Also there are other views about this again. Really my view of this "controversy" is that a lot of what has been in the Finnish press has been prompted by some weird power/relationship struggles in the MFA. Don't you think so?''I guess what I am trying to say is that I think we should keep it short, informative and provide people with the references so they can go look this thing up if they want. I would also be delighted if someone wrote more on the substantive parts of the article.
 * Corruption in the UN: I do not know what the rules of Wikipedia are in relation to such pages. As far as I am concerned you can do that. It will be up to the community to peer review it's relevance and accuracy.

All the best, --LPU0302 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Directors
I have restored the little list of past directos. Hope this is OK. I think such lists are useful for articles on the individuals concerned, to give a feel for the institution - Directors are often influential in establishing the ethos of the place as well as being useful for establishing the notability of the institution. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC))
 * But - few if any of them appear to be notable. What is the purpose of the list other than to list them?  JohnInDC (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they are all notable in general and more importantly here are notable according to wikipedia's WP:prof criteria. They didn't have pages but they do now - even if only little stubs. Best wishes :) (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Well - those articles are awfully thin on third-party references and I'm not sure how persuaded I am of their notability separate from UNU, when the articles cite right back to UNU to establish their notability! But it's not worth haggling over at this stage, particularly if the article's going to be getting the good shakeout that it needs -  JohnInDC (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These people are notable in the development economics circles. Of course this depends on your definition of notability.
 * - Pohjola: http://www.hse.fi/EN/HKI/P/Matti_Pohjola/12_PersonalPage.htm, Cornia: http://www.unifi.it/drpeps/CMpro-v-p-62.html
 * - Tarp
 * - Shorrocks: I have to say I can not find anything about him online right now.
 * - Simai: http://www.vki.hu/esimai_mihaly_cv.shtml,
 * - Jayawardena has passed away in 2004.

--LPU0302 (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

General style of the article
I think there is a danger with articles like this one that those involved with such an institution tend want to either promote the institution. SO it reads like an advert or perhaps are overly critical of it. It might be wise if those involved with editing were to check on Conflict of interest if they have not already done so. It argues: COI editing is strongly discouraged. And ''Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.''
 * First of all I want to assure you I have no need to promote this institution. A neutral and informative article is what I think would be suitable. As I say below, I am new as an editor and indeed I started with this article as I was looking the place up and found it to be a weird off-topic stubb. Would you disagree that the article is more informative now?

Could you also please give me examples of where the article is inaccurate or promotional? (I think I do not understand the concept completely). Best wishes, --LPU0302 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the promotional stuff eg In 2010 UNU-WIDER was ranked as 7th best International Development Think Tank by the University of Pennsylvania Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program if it is to be included might be better not in the lead. (See WP:Lead) (Msrasnw (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC))
 * But how is that promotional? Is it not a fact that it was ranked 7th? And that it is something that in the think tank circles is, to some extent, important news? If there can, and should be, refrenced critical stuff, why can there not be referenced and factual positive stuff? But generally I am interested to develop this page further as I am relatively new here and I am starting to like it a lot. --LPU0302 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to LPU0302
Sorry for these problems and welcome as a new editor.

It still reads to me as being a highly promotional article.

You say "Is it not a fact that it was ranked 7th?". But this raises other questions - why would ranking be mentioned in the lead - who was doing the ranking - are they reliable etc. I am a bit dubious about ranking exercises like this - having seen how easily they can be manipulated and used for self promotion. How many institutions were included in their sample. 7th out of the top 25 sounds good but suppose it is 7 out of 25 in their sample but 100 weren't in their sample. How was the sample chosen? How was the ranking undertaken? Were those consulted all linked in someway? Is this ranking generally respected? I note that the reference used is
 * THE GLOBAL “GO-TO THINK TANKS” 2010 The Leading Public Policy Research Organizations In The World, Final UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY EDITION. January 18 2011.
 * UNU is mentioned on the title page!

Wider doesn't seem to be listed in their earlier editions (see below).

Is it our contention that Wider has grown in prominance 2010-2011 when compared with 2009 and 2008?

Other useful information might relate to the size of the institution. How many researchers work there? I think there are less than 10 researchers employed there full time (although lots are in some loose way affiliated) and less than 20 support staff. This makes the institution really quite small - where as the Organisations title and the article make it sound, to my mind, really big.

Also sorry - I didn't mean to be offensive in anyway about the COI stuff and take your statement that I have no need to promote this institution as meaning you are not nor have been employed by WIDER or are related to any of its employees.

I agree that the article is now more informative in general but I think you might accept that it is less informative about some of the controversial stuff. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

THE GLOBAL “GO-TO THINK TANKS” 2010 The Leading Public Policy Research Organizations In The World, Final UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY EDITION. January 18 2011. Top 25 International Development Think Tank Table #11 2001

1. Brookings Institution, (United States)

2. Center for Global Development, (United States)

3. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), (United Kingdom)

4. German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut fur Entwicklungspolitik, (Germany)

5. Chatham House (AKA The Royal Institute of International Affairs), (United Kingdom)

6. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, (United States)

7. United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER) (Finland)

8. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), (United States)

9. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, (Germany)

10. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), (United States)

11. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), (Germany)

12. Atlas Economic Research Foundation, (United States)

13. Institute of Development Studies, (United Kingdom)

14. Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), (Denmark)

15. Fundacao Getulio Vargas (FGV), (Brazil)

16. Cato Institute: Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, (United States)

17. Club of Rome, (Switzerland)

18. Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), (Canada)

19. Center for Development and the Environment, (Norway)

20. Institute for Policy Studies, (United States)

21. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), (Canada)

22. Korea Development Institute (KDI), (Korea)

23. Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS), (Bangladesh)

24. Institute of Developing Economies (IDE-JETRO), (Japan)

25. Hudson Institute, Center for Global Prosperity, (United States)

2008 http://www.sas.upenn.edu/irp/documents/2008_Global_Go_To_Think_Tanks.pdf

Top Think Tanks by Research Area (Global) Top 10 International Development Think Tanks Table # 13 Think Tank

1. Brookings Institution – USA

2. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) – UK

3. Council on Foreign Relations – USA

4. RAND Corporation – US

5. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars - USA

6. Institute of Development Studies – UK

7. Center for Global Development – USA

8. International Food Policy Research Institute – USA

9. German Development Institute – Germany

T10. International Policy Network – UK

T10. Atlas Economic Research Foundation - USA

T10. International Development Research Centre - Canada

Note: Three institutions were tied for the 10th spot in rankings so all three are listed above.

2009 http://www.sas.upenn.edu/irp/about/documents/2009_GlobalGoToThinkTankRankings_TTIndex_1.28.10.pdf Top 10 International Development Think Tanks Table # 13

1. Brookings Institution, USA

2. Overseas Development Institute (ODI),UK

3. Center for Global Development, USA

4. Institute of Development Studies, UK

5. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, USA

6. RAND Corporation, USA

7. International Development Research Centre, Canada

8. Council on Foreign Relations, USA

9. Atlas Economic Research Foundation, USA

10. German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut fuer Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Germany


 * Hey, thank you for your answer. Sorry I have not written back before...or actually I have, but on Thursday it kept giving me some weird problem (and I did write pretty long replies). But now I am back at home all refreshed after a holiday weekend. I will write an answer as soon as I have time. --LPU0302 (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ranking
I have move the ranking - which I don't really think should be included - to its own little section further down the page. This will slightly reduce, to my mind the over-promotional tone of this article. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC))