critic to note that the Bank was already doing what Hirschman proposed: “Dr. Hirschman is not well aware of the Bank’s practice concerning consultation. In the 253 loans and credits made in the last five years [...] only 40 loan and credit agreements required consultation [...]. These were ‘deemed essential’.”<sup>54</sup> Other critics remarked that “the Bank does do just what is suggested,”<sup>55</sup> and Hans Adler concluded: “some of his suggestions are now a regular part of our appraisal. It might therefore be useful for Hirschman to read some of our recent reports.”<sup>56</sup> In other cases, Hirschman’s assumptions were considered plainly wrong. In his “Interim Observations” he had stated that the Bank’s task was “to undertake projects that are unattractive to private capital because uncertainty surrounding their success is too high.”<sup>57</sup> A commentator sharply noted that “it has been the policy of the Bank _not_ to make loans for projects where uncertainties surrounding their success were high on the ground that the borrower’s welfare and development would be best served if his investments were made, and Bank money used, only for sound projects.”<sup>58</sup> As for Hirschman’s claim that the Bank insisted on dealing with agencies that were autonomous from government, it was remarked that the point was not, as Hirschman seemed to see it, the theoretical opposition of politically autonomous agencies vs. politically dependent agencies, but rather the practical separation of political and managerial functions.<sup>59</sup> In this respect, Warren Baum argued that the Bank was far from doctrinaire, while those familiar with Hirschman's chosen examples considered them “singularly inappropriate.”<sup>60</sup> Some Bank officials also doubted that it would be useful for the

> 54 A.D. Spottswood to Mr. Bernard Chadenet’, “Comments on Dr. Hirschman’s ‘Interim Observations’,” September 8, 1965, World Bank Hirschman Folders Vol. 1.

> 55 C.P. McMeekan to Mr. H.B. Ripman, “Project Study – A.O. Hirschman,” September 22, 1965, World Bank Hirschman Folders Vol. 1; see also Adler’s comment: “in projects with a significant range of outcomes, we have been using two approaches. The first is exactly the one suggested by Hirschman,” Hans A. Adler to Mr. Warren C. Baum, “Comments on Professor Hirschman’s ‘Study of Selected World Bank Projects – Some Interim Observations’,” September 22, 1965, World Bank Hirschman Folders Vol. 1.

> 56 Hans A. Adler to Mr. Warren C. Baum, “Comments on Professor Hirschman’s ‘Study of Selected World Bank Projects – Some Interim Observations’,” September 22, 1965, World Bank Hirschman Folders Vol. 1.

> 57 Albert O. Hirschman, “A Study of Selected World Bank Projects – Some Interim Observations,” August 1965, World Bank Hirschman Folders Vol. 1.

> 58 A.D. Spottswood to Mr. Bernard Chadenet’, “Comments on Dr. Hirschman’s ‘Interim Observations’,” September 8, 1965, World Bank Hirschman Folders Vol. 1, italics in the original.

> 59 Warren C. Baum to Mr. B. Chadenet, “Comments on Mr. Hirschman’s Paper,” September 17, 1965, World Bank Hirschman Folders, Vol. 1. Hans Adler considered Hirschman’s position on this issue to be based on a “mistaken premise.” The Bank’s concern, in his words, had not been the independence of the agencies, but “to define the respective areas,” Hans A. Adler to Mr. Warren C. Baum, “Comments on Professor Hirschman’s ‘Study of Selected World Bank Projects – Some Interim Observations’,” September 22, 1965, World Bank Hirschman Folders Vol. 1.

> 60 C.P. McMeekan to Mr. H.B. Ripman, “Project Study – A.O. Hirschman,” September 22, 1965, World Bank Hirschman Folders Vol. 1; see for example the comments of Spottswood on Hirschman’s analysis of the Damodar Valley Corporation, of Reid on the loans to Uruguay and Peru, of Baum on Ecuador and Nigeria, and of Piccagli on Uganda, A.D. Spottswood to Mr. Bernard Chadenet, “Comments on Dr. Hirschman’s ‘Interim

22