It is shortsighted to typecast the failings of the World Bank as intentional, it is a structure problem with the Washington Consensus and the problems with giving veto powers to and allowing the world’s most powerful nations to have the largest say in how the organisation is run. The Washington Consensus was devised in the 1990s and solidified the core structural policies that the group implements in their lending practices, namely the deregulation and liberalisation of markets, coupled with privatisation and the downscaling of government. This has garnered a great deal of criticism, for ignoring equity, employment, and how privatisation policies are carried out, while giving all decision making powers to G8 and G20 nations, and even veto powers and the right to appoint the president of the group solely to the US.
In this way the World Bank may be perpetuating the problem of the global economy in poorer countries, not intentionally merely by following the fiscal rulebook on which wealthier nations are run. In this way economist, such a Joseph Stiglitz, have critiqued the World Bank group for placing too much emphasis on GDP growth, ignoring stability and sustainability of that growth and whether it actually improves living standards. Others have alleged that most of the World Bank's loans have ended up in the hands of corrupt leaders of poor countries and doesn't even really impact the people it was allotted to help. But this negative dynamic surrounding international monetary institutions like the World Bank or IMF is fundamentally linked to the fact that these group's memberships are limited to small number of western countries, how can poorer nations improve if they are not at the table?