From Publishers Weekly
As portrayed by Washington Post columnist Mallaby, the charming, powerful, Australian-born millionaire James Wolfensohn works to transform the World Bank, of which he is president, from a Cold War dinosaur obsessed with regulations and procedures to an organization that is leanly and meanly focused on getting underdeveloped countries onto the economic grid on their own terms. Without a doubt, Wolfensohn makes great copy: he competed in the Olympics, refinanced Chrysler in 1980 and chaired a variety of top-flight cultural institutions. Mallaby (After Apartheid) efficiently relays anecdotes from each of these periods to reveal Wolfensohn's psychological, professional and intellectual complexion. The brilliant and deliberative leader who emerges has the "10-million-volt passion" of wanting the presidency of the World Bank, and where the book really shines is in Mallaby's ability to integrate the political, social and interpersonal narratives that lead to Wolfensohn's ascension to it in 1995. Mallaby presents Wolfensohn as forcefully advocating self-determination for poor countries (not unlike "feisty" NGO "tormentors" who oppose the Bank's version of globalization), but finds that Wolfensohn has been "obliged to reckon" with the U.S.'s varying agendas "and generally with the shifting appetites of his rich political masters." That's a characterization with which not everyone will agree, but Mallaby forges it with skill, opening his subject to further scrutiny by all sides.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
We often refer to Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde when we want to suggest that someone has a dual personality, part of it charming, part of it monstrous. But we tend not to distinguish very clearly between people who cannot help swinging back and forth between the two and those who can alternate at will, and often do so in a quite calculated way.
I wonder if Sebastian Mallaby had Stevenson in the back of his mind when he was writing this book, for the World Bank President James Wolfensohn he portrays here appears to be almost exactly 50 percent Jekyll and 50 percent Hyde. Wolfensohn/Jekyll is the irresistible charmer seen at his vacation home in Jackson Hole, Wyo., who can turn bitter foes into best friends (or at least "frenemies") with a single shot of his charisma. Wolfensohn/Hyde is the intolerable monster seen on Wall Street and in Washington, whose egocentric tantrums have just the opposite effect. The moral of Mallaby's story is that Wolfensohn's presidency of the World Bank would have been more successful had Dr. Jekyll been in sole charge. But that may underestimate the usefulness of Mr. Hyde.
Wolfensohn's career is an astonishing story in its own right, and Mallaby, an accomplished British journalist who is now a Washington Post editorial writer, tells it well. Born and raised in Sydney, the son of an unsuccessful Jewish businessman who had quit England for Australia during the Great Depression, Wolfensohn was an underachiever in high school but a renaissance man in college. He learned to fly. He learned to fence, captaining the Australian Olympic team. And then, at Harvard Business School, he learned to schmooze. Throughout the 1960s and '70s, he clawed his way up the greasy pole of global finance, working in New York for both Schroders and Salomon Brothers and accumulating not only a substantial fortune but also one of the world's classiest Rolodexes. One of the wizards of the age of relationship banking, Wolfensohn brought to finance many of the skills that his friend Bill Clinton brought to politics -- in particular, an ability to make every contact in a vast network feel loved.
Yet mere wealth was never enough for him. Wolfensohn also found time to nurture and then to display his musical gifts. At age 40 he was encouraged by his ailing friend Jacqueline du Pré to take up the cello. Ten years after his first lesson, he was sufficiently accomplished to perform in concert at Carnegie Hall. It did not hurt that he was then chairman of the Carnegie Hall board.
In Wolfensohn's philanthropy, too, he hankered after public performances -- and when it comes to doing good, the stages don't come much bigger than the World Bank. Getting there took him slightly longer than getting to Carnegie Hall. Wolfensohn was first considered for the job as early as 1980, but it was another 15 years before he got it.
As he pitched it to the key players in the Clinton administration, Wolfensohn plus the World Bank would be a marriage made in heaven: His charisma and boundless energy would be wedded to its resources and global aegis. But despite being called a bank, the institution he yearned to run was in many ways much more like the financial division of the United Nations. Its cosmopolitan civil service culture was a thousand miles removed from the yelling, table-thumping style of the investment banks of New York and London. It was this cultural gap, Mallaby argues, that kept turning Jekyll into Hyde.
Outsiders only saw Jekyll. Confronted by the bank's increasingly vociferous critics among nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), Wolfensohn listened, nodded, affected contrition, pledged repentance. Confronted by the bank's senior staff, he morphed into Hyde -- bullying, swearing, slamming doors, threatening resignation.
Mallaby is full of praise for Wolfensohn in his Jekyll guise. We see Wolfensohn wooing the NGOs, recoiling from the corruption of the Ivory Coast, smelling a rat in Suharto's Indonesia, spotting a success story in Uganda and brilliantly seizing an opportunity in Bosnia, ensuring that the World Bank played a decisive role in stabilizing that shattered country after the 1995 Dayton peace accords.
Perhaps most impressive of all is Mallaby's account of how Wolfensohn outwitted his critics in the Bush administration. With some sensationally deft footwork, he managed to weave around Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (who allegedly wanted his scalp) and to reverse the president's stance on foreign aid (who else could have got Bush and Bono, the Irish rock star turned development activist, onto the same stage?). By 2003 he felt sufficiently secure to refuse requests for World Bank assistance with the reconstruction of U.S.-occupied Iraq.
But when he turns to the internal politics of the bank, Mallaby reveals Mr. Hyde. It is not a pretty sight. When Wolfensohn arrived at Jakarta's airport in February 1998, he greeted the bank's director for Indonesia by telling him, "You've really [expletive] this country up" -- no doubt a relatively affable salutation at Salomon Brothers in the roaring 1980s but not normal World Bank parlance. His staff came to dread such storms of profanity. To avoid them, they learned never to voice criticism when the boss unveiled one of his Big Ideas -- of the Bank as a "knowledge bank," of a new "Strategic Compact" with poor countries, of a "New Development Framework." The correct response to such grandiose visions was always: "Yes, Jim, absolutely, Jim."
As Mallaby tells it, Wolfensohn was not always wholly in control of his mood swings. I am not so sure. My guess is he was modeling his outbursts on those of the great financial maestro Siegmund Warburg, who had been Wolfensohn's mentor in the 1960s. After detonating himself in mid-meeting and storming back to his hotel, Warburg would coolly ask colleagues: "How did I do?" One can imagine Wolfensohn asking the same question after some of the suspiciously theatrical rages Mallaby describes.
Wolfensohn may have felt he needed such blasts to rouse the troubled institution he inherited. The Bank was under fire. Its "structural adjustment programs" -- which involved tightening the fiscal and monetary policies in borrower countries -- had earned it the enmity of many NGOs, which saw it and the International Monetary Fund as the two ugly sisters of globalization. There was disquiet on the other side of the political spectrum too. The Bank's role was to lend capital at affordable rates to help poor countries develop their economies, and since its foundation in 1944, it had made a great many such loans. Yet in many of the recipient countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, growth had been feeble or nonexistent. If critics on the left saw the Bank as too tough, critics on the right suspected it was much too soft, handing out money to corrupt Third World politicians who simply siphoned it into their Swiss bank accounts.
Assailed on all sides, the Bank's bureaucrats -- thousands of economics PhDs from all around the world -- hunkered down and got on with what they did best: generating an awesome quantity of reports and statistics. Nothing illustrates more strikingly what a rut the Bank was in than its snail-like slowness to grasp the magnitude of the HIV-AIDS epidemic. In short, the institution needed a shakeup, and Wolfensohn's job was to administer it. This was not something Dr. Jekyll could do. It called for Mr. Hyde.
One episode in particular illustrates what Wolfensohn was up against. It occurred at a 1997 meeting of the bank's board, which represents the rich countries that are its shareholders. Wolfensohn went along expecting to give an ornamental clock and utter a few valedictory banalities to Marc-Antoine Autheman, the outgoing French representative. Instead, he was the recipient of an earful of Gallic invective. Having denounced Wolfensohn's "obsessive reference to the exclusive and irrelevant model of the American private sector," Autheman proceeded to recite a bizarre allegorical poem:
Narcissus, you complain and praise your image
Which the mainstream mirrors
Only Echo Echo responds
But who . . . would follow you but Echo
If your motto remains
Follow me, Support me, and Repeat after me.
No one had any doubt who "Narcissus" was meant to be. But the image of Wolfensohn gazing fondly at his own reflection in the "pool" of the World Bank could be turned around. For if the Bank was a pool when Wolfensohn took it over, it was a distinctly stagnant one. And far from merely admiring his own reflection in it, Wolfensohn had made it his business to stir the pool up.
"I say yes, Jim," Autheman continued, "when you care for Africa; listen to the civil society; ask for a new, unprecedented debt relief. . . . But, I say no when you respond to dissent by the threats to resign [and] criticize staff to the point where they feel humiliated."
To which the only possible response must surely be: poppycock. If one of its senior directors could come out with drivel like this, the World Bank definitely needed as much Hyde as Jekyll from Jim Wolfensohn -- and maybe more.
很久以前我就意识到,我这辈子是没法从名人传记、管理丛书或者励志美文里汲取到任何营养来改变我的生活了,所以对于这类图书来说,写得好不好看就成了我选择阅读的标准,《大而不倒》可以当成美剧来看,《富可敌国》是本优秀的金融历史书,而这本由《富可敌国》的作者麻辣比写...
评分很久以前我就意识到,我这辈子是没法从名人传记、管理丛书或者励志美文里汲取到任何营养来改变我的生活了,所以对于这类图书来说,写得好不好看就成了我选择阅读的标准,《大而不倒》可以当成美剧来看,《富可敌国》是本优秀的金融历史书,而这本由《富可敌国》的作者麻辣比写...
评分很久以前我就意识到,我这辈子是没法从名人传记、管理丛书或者励志美文里汲取到任何营养来改变我的生活了,所以对于这类图书来说,写得好不好看就成了我选择阅读的标准,《大而不倒》可以当成美剧来看,《富可敌国》是本优秀的金融历史书,而这本由《富可敌国》的作者麻辣比写...
评分很久以前我就意识到,我这辈子是没法从名人传记、管理丛书或者励志美文里汲取到任何营养来改变我的生活了,所以对于这类图书来说,写得好不好看就成了我选择阅读的标准,《大而不倒》可以当成美剧来看,《富可敌国》是本优秀的金融历史书,而这本由《富可敌国》的作者麻辣比写...
评分很久以前我就意识到,我这辈子是没法从名人传记、管理丛书或者励志美文里汲取到任何营养来改变我的生活了,所以对于这类图书来说,写得好不好看就成了我选择阅读的标准,《大而不倒》可以当成美剧来看,《富可敌国》是本优秀的金融历史书,而这本由《富可敌国》的作者麻辣比写...
坦白说,这本书的阅读体验是起伏跌宕的。有些章节简直是史诗级的宏大叙事,描绘了跨越半个世纪的金融帝国兴衰,那种波澜壮阔的史诗感,让人仿佛置身于历史的转折点。我尤其赞赏作者在处理历史细节上的严谨性,每一个引用的数据、每一次政策变动的背景,都经过了扎实的考证,让人信服。但与此同时,也有一些段落,信息密度过高,术语的出现频率让我不得不频繁地停下来查阅资料,这让阅读的流畅性受到了一定的影响。这可能也是这类深度研究型作品的通病吧,想要面面俱到,就难免会给非专业读者带来一些门槛。不过,即便如此,我依然认为它值得我投入时间去啃读。因为它不仅仅是关于“钱”的故事,它更深刻地探讨了“信任”和“规则”是如何构建和瓦解的。每一次当我感到有些吃力时,作者总会用一句精妙的总结或一个极富画面感的比喻将我重新拉回主线,这种叙事节奏的把控,实属高明。
评分读完此书,我最大的感受是“敬畏”。不是对金钱的崇拜,而是对系统复杂性的敬畏。作者通过无数个错综复杂的跨国交易和政策博弈,展现了一个远超个体理解能力的全球金融网络是如何运作的。它像剥洋葱一样,一层层揭示着表象下的深层机制。书中对信息流和决策延迟的分析尤其精妙,揭示了为什么即便是最聪明的参与者,也可能因为信息的不对称而做出次优决策。这种对人类局限性和系统脆弱性的洞察,让我对日常的新闻报道有了更深层次的解读能力。这本书不是那种读完后会让你立刻变富有的“秘籍”,但它绝对会让你成为一个更清醒、更有批判性思维的观察者。它教会你如何去看待那些看似稳固的金融堡垒,以及它们是如何在看不见的角落里酝酿着自我颠覆的可能。是一部让人深思,并愿意反复重读的佳作。
评分这本书的封面设计极具冲击力,那种深邃的蓝色调配上烫金的字体,立刻就给人一种庄重且权威的感觉。初次翻阅,我原以为会是一本枯燥的金融教科书,毕竟书名听起来就带着一股子严肃劲儿。然而,里面的叙事方式却出乎我的意料。作者似乎非常擅长讲故事,他没有将复杂的经济学概念堆砌在一起,而是将它们融入到一系列引人入胜的案例研究中。我印象最深的是其中关于某个小型岛国如何通过巧妙的金融操作,在国际货币体系中实现惊人跃升的章节。那段描述简直像是一部谍战片,充满了博弈、算计和最终的胜利。读完之后,我感觉自己对全球资本流动的脉络有了更直观的理解,不再是那些冷冰冰的数字和图表,而是活生生的权力游戏。尤其是作者对那些幕后操盘手的心理刻画,入木三分,让人不禁思考,在金钱的洪流之下,人性究竟扮演着怎样的角色。这本书在提供知识的同时,更重要的是提供了一种看待世界的全新视角,一种洞察力,这才是它最宝贵的地方。
评分我是在一个朋友的强烈推荐下接触到这本书的,他当时说这本书能颠覆我以往对“财富”的认知。一开始我持怀疑态度,觉得可能又是那种故作高深的畅销书。结果,这本书的论证逻辑之缜密,让我彻底折服。作者在构建自己的理论体系时,像一位精密的钟表匠,每一个齿轮、每一个发条都咬合得天衣无缝。他没有简单地归咎于某一种制度或某一个国家,而是从更深层次的权力结构和信息不对称性入手,解构了现代金融体系的内在矛盾。特别是关于“债务”本质的探讨,让我醍醐灌顶。过去我总觉得债务是个负面的词汇,但在书中,它被描绘成一种驱动世界运转的必要张力。这本书的观点充满了思辨性,它不会直接给你答案,而是强迫你思考:“如果我是那个制定规则的人,我会如何设计这个体系?”这种互动式的阅读体验,远比被动接受知识要来得深刻和持久。
评分这本书的文字风格充满了冷静的观察者姿态,很少有煽情或夸张的表达,但这恰恰增强了它的说服力。它就像一个高空俯瞰的无人机视角,冷静地记录着地表上发生的金融风暴,不带个人偏见,只呈现事实的肌理。我特别喜欢作者在描述宏观经济趋势时,所采用的那种近乎诗意的语言——比如将资金的跨境流动比作“看不见的河流”,将市场恐慌比作“集体的失语症”。这些比喻既准确又富有美感,让原本可能枯燥的经济分析变得生动起来。它成功地将一门复杂的“硬科学”与优美的“文科叙事”结合了起来。唯一的遗憾是,有些章节的翻译似乎稍显生硬,可能是我阅读的是译本的原因,导致部分精准的金融术语在中文语境下略显生涩,需要反复琢磨才能完全捕捉到作者的原意。
评分Seb Mallaby也真惨,三本书的中文翻译很烂。
评分Seb Mallaby也真惨,三本书的中文翻译很烂。
评分Seb Mallaby也真惨,三本书的中文翻译很烂。
评分Seb Mallaby也真惨,三本书的中文翻译很烂。
评分Seb Mallaby也真惨,三本书的中文翻译很烂。
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有