bigger, bolder solution and start giving american people fake today that we are sincere in the cuts we're asking for. and the other budgetary changes that are long overdue. this is a very important moment in american history. 12 people can step up. they need our help behind them, and that is what we're trying to offer today. a lot of folks are trying to make the decision right now. they are worried they would be vilified. >> given that, i think this guy should be director of omb. given the fiscal situation and the united states, would you vote for more stimulus? >> my personal opinion is in

order to create jobs, it has to be about confidence in really the way to confidence in the market is to get along best term fiscal plan. you could talk about stimulus, jobs. the real plan is compromise from the members of congress. grow up, the adults and put what is on the table that we of scene, whether it be the blue dog blueprint, the fiscal commission, other possibilities that may exist out there, the adults about it. it is time to be mature adults and get something done. that is how you stimulate the economy and create jobs, with certainty and long-term performance in fiscal responsibility. thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on today's "washington

journal" we will discuss the president's jobs bill. washington journal begins live it 7:00 eastern this morning and every day here on c-span. watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying come and check the latest campaign contributions was c- span was -- would sit for campaign 2012. -- with c-span and campaign 2012. it is all at c-span.org/campaig n2012. >> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics,

american history. this month look for congress to consider federal spending into november. keep tabs on the deficit committee as they formulate a plan to lower the debt. and follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across country. it is all available to you on television, radio, online and social media sites. we are on the road with our c- span digital bus and local content vehicles. bringing our resources to local communities, it is washington your way. the c-span networks, created by cable provided as a public service. >> world bank president robert alexa's histories warning lights are flashing. -- robert zellick. he plans to discuss these trends in a meeting with the international monetary fund

officials next week. this is 55 minutes. i am very pleased to have the opportunity to do with you. in a village in china people gather to discuss the future. they do not want handouts, policy prescriptions, and they certainly do not want lectures from visiting dignitaries. they want a chance. they're willing to leave their past behind. are we? richard news that an earnest make combine their experience in

a book -- richard newstat and earnest may combine their experience and a book. so what question should we be considering in the uncertain autumn of 2011? how do today's challenges relate to what has gone on before? the world banks upcoming meetings are a descendant of others. a historic conference laid the groundwork for three projects laid the basis for what we still consider the project today. a project for the international monetary fund so as to manage

adjustments and exchange rates and to avoid currency competition and things that could break international archives. to make long-term capital available to states so countries could grow and buy from one another. and a project to reduce barriers to international trade, to foster open markets to reduce -- resist downward spiral is. the architects of the system created a model for their work. let's take a moment to recall that world. in that world developed economy sherpa gdp was about 80%, with the united states alone accounting for 40%. in that world developed economies accounted for two- thirds of global trade. in that world most of today's

developing countries were still colonies -- qualities. the system has remained broadly intact. for all its weaknesses and critics and catch over some of the system provided the enabling environment for the greatest era of growth and the largest, most successful economic transformation of the shortest amount of time in world history. the system itself is not been stoned. the key insight that they let this was the need for wisdom to recognize when something new is going on, and for the will to

face and accommodate what is new to act boldly, decisively, yet cooperative way. today histories warning lights are flashing again. red, yellow, and some green. will we face the challenges of 2011 with denial? with their heads stuck in the sand? or will we face them with blame and acrimony, obscuring the potential. or will we face them constructively? as with every great historical shift, we need to ask questions about what is really going on. tectonic plates are shifting. in the 1990's, developing countries develop a fifth of global growth.

some forecasters estimate that developing major economies would collectively account for more than a half of all global growth. already we live in a world where it china's 32 provinces were countries, they would be among the 33 fastest-growing countries in the world over the past 30 years. today tried that is consuming over half the world cement, almost half the world's iron ore and steel and pigs and eggs. some of the demand for minerals and materials will ease, but

india will be the next to gear up. the growth model is unsustainable. china has recognize the needs to deal with the challenges of environmental degradation come in a quality, resource use, demographics, productivity growth in overreliance on foreign markets. if china reaches of a -- $16,000 of income per person by 2030, the effect on the world economy would be equivalent to adding 59 south korea's. it is hard to see how that results would be sustainable within a model of investment-led growth. i am also skeptical of predictions of advanced economies inevitable declines. with credible and action, not a

short-term fixes and with the focus on structural and tax reforms to spur private sector growth, boost productivity and create jobs, and be of some economies can turn around and power ahead. predictions of inevitable stagnation and decline have time and again proven to be wrong. nor is it time to say developed countries can no longer afford to face up to challenges beyond their borders. in 1947 in the united states of president truman, an average american earned less than one- third of what each american produces today. it degeneration of 1947 with less than one-third of well per person could face the world bowl week, shouldn't we be able to do the same? americans, europeans, japanese and other developed world countries play vital roles in innovation, investment,

technology, security, and yes, development. their contributions still provide the underpinnings for the current national system. it is in the self-interest of the major developed states and in the global interest to be with others, the architects of the future. something fundamental is going on, but the lesson is that we must modernize, not abandoned, multilateralism. something fundamental is going on, but the lesson is we must democratize, and not retreat behind orders or close ourselves off. the lesson is that we must change our old concepts in constricting labels, not the multilateral commitment. just listen to the labels for a moment. first world and third world. north and south. developed and underdeveloped. rich and poor. them and us. the language of development has

been the language of old hierarchies, old war -- old world, and old order. when countries that produce almost 50 percent of their electricity from coal tell poor countries with no energy alternatives that they could not use coal, what are they really saying? do what i say cut but not what i do. when countries with large fiscal deficits preach fiscal deficits -- discipline, what are they really saying? do what i say, not what i do. when countries pay homage to free trade, the whole -- to hold back developing countries were barriers, what are they really saying? do what i say, but not i do. it and do what i say not what i do world will fracture to the detriment of all. the old ways can and must change. already we're seeing the signs of change. are around the world is no

longer european japanese or american models. the mexican and brazilian systems are being looked to for innovation in keeping children in school, improving infant in maternal mortality and overcoming poverty without breaking budgets. singapore's economy is drawing to economies worldwide. india's model for information technology services is being copied across africa. relationships among developing countries are changing the developing world as we knew it. in the 1990's cover developing countries imported 15% of their merchandise from other developing countries. today it is three times that amount. in 2008, foreign investment and

about -- amount of 4 1/3 going to developing countries, and that share is growing. today it is likely near 40%. developing countries are no longer the recipients of aid, they are also providers. in 2008, new york urging donors contributed between 12 and $15 billion in u.s. dollars in development aid. that is equivalent to 10% to 2 percent signed provided by traditional development providers. that is likely a conservative estimate. developing countries are understandably sensitive about assuming new responsibilities trust upon. what does this mean for the future? the new normal will be no normal. the new normal will be dynamic, not fixed cover with more countries rising in shaping the multilateral system. some states may falter. the rising economies will be

joining new networks and reverse combinations and changing patterns. these new networks will be displeasing old hierarchies. the new normal will be about countries earning their place in world economic affairs, not presuming it because of past the ending or official prerogatives. the new normal will be fluid, and sometimes volatile, but also more opportunities for countries to benefit from the global economy. the new normal will be about lifting growth, not just shifting growth. creating new jobs as old ones slipped in value, capturing the potential of sustainable and green growth, stimulating the private sector to innovate, create new technology in meet changing needs. the new normal will be about smart economic power. the success will be alert to learn from all countries, regardless of all labels.

the new normal will be about voice. women in their communities, citizens and their countries, states of the international system. as we've seen in the middle east and north africa, it will be about social accountability, government transparency, civil society. citizens that are changing the world, even as we raced to step up. adapting to this new world is not about modest shifts in voting power at the imf or world great -- world bank group boards. it is not about developing countries being instructed coming in not about north, south 0 some politics of complaining and gleaming. adapting to this new world is about recognizing that we must all be responsible stakeholders now. in an interdependent global economy, we need china to be responsible stakeholder. we need china to be responsible

trading partner to move towards a responsible exchange rate system, to offer intellectual property protection, to make responsible investments in pursuit responsible environmental policies, but this is not just about china. europe, japan, in the united states must be responsible stakeholders, too. they have procrastinated too long on taking the difficult decisions, narrowing what choices are left to a painful few. the global economy has entered a new danger zone with little running room as european countries resist difficult truths about the common responsibilities of a common currency. japan has resisted structural forms that could retool the sputtering economic system. the united states is facing record peacetime deficits with no agreed approach in sight for cutting the drivers of debt.

it is not responsible for the year rose on to pledge fealty to monitor a union without facing up to either of fiscal union that would make a monetary union workable court accepting the consequences for uncompetitive debt burden members. it is not responsible for the united states to falter in facing fundamental issues such as and sustained growth and entitlement spending, the need for pro-rate tax system installed trade policy. unless europe, japan, in united states also pays up to their responsibilities, they will drag down not only themselves, but the global economy. emerging markets will not sit on the sidelines. they will not go back to the world of 1944, leaders and followers in spheres of influence. the insight from 1944 is the need for leadership, for reasoning our way to change

will tell lateral system. the time for muddling through is over. if we do not get ahead of the events, if we do not adapt to change, if we do not rise above short-term political tactics or recognize with power comes responsibility, then we will drift in the entrance -- dangerous currents. that is the illustrious history for all of this, developed in emerging countries alike. some of the potential is enormous. over the past 25 years the share of poor people living in developing countries has been cut in half. in just four years child mortality rates have fallen by 25 percent in 18 african countries. over the 10 years before the financial crisis, economies in africa were ruined by 5% to 6 percent signed on average. we have seen the power of the

private sector in the $77 billion but has been invested in telecom networks over the past decade. boosting the number of mobile subscribers from under 10 million to nearly 400 million. in the rapid rise of equity funds looking to put private capital to work in developing countries. my point is a basic one. today bercy economic, trade, and financial interdependence that was incomprehensible in 1944. we're seeing innovation, scientific breakthroughs, and communications in comprehensible in 1944. we're seeing supply chains and logistics systems that reach across continents and oceans. we're seeing multiple pools of growth with new economic powers in a development pattern. none of these developments were

envisioned in 1944. can we now combine these changes with a modernized multilateralism to herald a new economy beyond depended, beyond the simplistic the vision between donors and recipients? a world beyond aid? prior to the systems, foreign aid assisting primarily with truth. crisis -- prior to the system, foreign aid assisted with humanitarian crisis. he became a currency to gain support in a bipolar cold-war competition. that 1944 world has changed dramatically. it is time to think about this.

these changes do not mean there is no longer a place for a door that development should not honor commitments or not honor what he has achieved. for millions of people around the world, but that aid remained the life or death matter. it remains a valuable boost in enabling countries to climb the ladder of growth, and much remains to be done to achieve millennium goals. much remains to be done to reach the bottom billion. the almost 1.5 billion people today who live in countries that are affected by fragility of conflict and violence. none of these countries has yet achieved a single millennium development goal. lead is not for life, nor should it be what development countries give with one hand while with the other they exclude developing countries from our cultural or other trade markets or restrict their access to sustainable energy.

in a world beyond age, assistance will be integrated with and connected to global growth strategies, fundamentally driven by private investment and entrepreneur worship. the goal would not be charity, but a mutual interest in building more poles of growth. in a world beyond age, sound economic policies would be as important as a as a percentage of gdp. in a world beyond eight, g-18 agreements on imbalances, structural reforms, fossil fuel subsidies and food security would be as important as aid as a percentage of gdp. in a world beyond aid, the indians the virgin markets would assist those behind with experience pacific. in a world beyond aid, new financial instruments would insure small holder farmers against route for countries

. ainst turkey's support for innovation and scientific breakthroughs would develop drought-resistant more nutritious and better-yielding crops, create efficient and non- carbide energy sources and find new light-saving vaccines. developed countries need to recognize still interest in helping developing countries get on the pathway to sustainable growth. they need to honor their commitments and also recognize that the climate for trade will grow colder as donor countries struggle with that. taxpayers cover right to know that the world bank and other development institutions are responsible sticklers also. we need to do a better job of demonstrating the effectiveness of aids, showing value for

money and pointing to results. we need to leverage a more effectively, and we need to expand the contributors by involving more stakeholders. so what might a world beyond eight mead in practical terms? that the country level, moving beyond age means mobilizing and leveraging domestic savings and revenues transparently. it means good governance, openness, and transparency, facilitating strong dissent involvement and voice. it means investing in people, including access to efficient safety net, basic services and quality education link to training and jobs. requiring public institutions and officials to deliver, not just represent interests. it means encouraging entrepreneurs, small businesses, private investment and innovation. it means investing in infrastructure to build the

basis for future productivity, including through innovative, public/private partnerships. it means investing and connectivity while sharing information. in the new world economy could data and information will be at least as important as financial assistance. at the international level amines multilateral innovation to forge progress of open trade and investment, access to energy, food security, competition in services, and climate change. not always waiting for all to join, but moving ahead for coalitions of progress are possible. it means using the multilateral system to look at new policy in financing possibilities with roles for all. for the world bank group, moving beyond age means continuing to transform ourselves to become an open knowledge partner, drawing from researching, customizing

and sharing solutions from around the world. the world bank group would be an investor and intermediary for investors and institutions and in capacity, whether of governments or businesses or civil society. it would be a catalyst for action in a democratized development model. and it would be a champion of inclusive and sustainable growth. three years ago i proposed one such innovation. i called it of 1 percent solution whereby sovereign walled funds would invest one percent of their assets and africans growth. today i see the private sector arm as a new asset a management company and the fund's total over $4 billion over 3 billion of which come from outside investors such as auburn well funds and pension funds.

today i want to propose another idea that could bring us closer to a world beyond aid, 50% solution. women make up 50% of the global population, and 40% of the global work force. in africa were mixed -- women are the backbone of the communities. they represent the majority of farmers in produce 80 percent of the continent's food. yet women own only 1 percent of the world's wealth. women and girls in developing countries are less likely than men to survive infancy come survive early childhood were to survive reproductive years. women are less likely to be paid for their labor, to farm out profitable crops or to own assets such as lee and, and yet the evidence of women's human, social, and economic potential is overwhelming. we know gender equality is smart

economics. that countries with gender equality tend to a lower party rates, that a child's chance of survival is much greater if the income goes through the hands of the mother. that simply by giving women more control over agricultural inputs, a cruel choice activity could be increased by as much as 20%. this is not just about economic potential. i believe gender equality is a right, not just your resources. nor is gender equality just about developing countries. around the world one in 10 women will be sexually or physically abused by a partner or someone she knows over the course of her life time. we can talk about consigning old terms to history, but its best built -- still a us and them world.

how does this relate to a world beyond aid? simply put, it is about changing policies and empowering every person, man or woman, not just providing aid packages. we can give aid to better support women and girls, and we should, but age alone is not enough. we will not release the full potential of how the world's population until globally we address the issue of equality, until countries and communities in households around the world acknowledge women's rights and change their rules of inequality. given women the right to own land, giving women the right to own and run and operate a business, giving women the right to inherit, and giving them greater earning power, giving women greater control over resources within their household staff, these could boost children's health, increase girls' education, leveraged entrepreneurs it in economic productivity intake is closer to

a world without aid. since i became president of the world bank group four years ago i talked about the importance of monarch denies it -- modernizing multilateralism to better recognize and reflect the ships that are taking place in the world today. i have talked about the need to democracy and development all, north, south, east, west, rich and poor, men and women, that they can play a part in designing, executing and continually improving development solutions. i have talked about the need to make openness and transparency and accountability keep features cover not only of the world bank group of government policy across the world. i talked about the need to forge a new social contract, recognize investments and citizens voiced

an accountability art it's important to the moment are -- as firms and factories. today i tried to outline hall a multilateral system better reflecting the economic realities today more rooted in the notion of stakeholder responsibility, more connected to private sector civil society networks, more committed to practical problem solving and innovation could release the world beyond aid, a world that highlights prosperity. there are some that may argue this approach is too radical, that it will somehow lead developed countries and there a commitment off the hook. there are some that argued this approach may be too risky, that it will give the world a new financial instruments in markets that could get developing

countries into trouble. it need not. there are some that may argue this approach is too premature, the developing countries are not ready to be responsible stakeholders. are they any less ready than developed economies appear to be? already today private-sector financial flows dwarf official development assistance. already some philanthropic contributions toward bilateral government aid and new players and owners are already transforming a world as we know it. we need to be thinking in time, drawing insights from those intrepid multilateral less in asking questions to distinguish the circumstances of our time and acting with the aim of preparing for times to cover. it is time to catch up, time to assume our responsibilities, time to create for the future,

not pine for the past. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for that extraordinary, sweeping set of remarks. you have combined strategic vision with pragmatism in your remarks on the importance of gender equality resonate especially powerful here at george washington. just in the past few years we have launched a global gender initiative and global women's forum and in the process of launching and university-wide forum. much with you on that. we of serving time for questions, so we can open things up for short questions from

audience. please introduce yourself as we take questions, and to keep your questions in the form of a question rather than a speech. i think we're ready to begin. i see a question here in the front. >> thank you so much for your comments today. addressing some of the ideas you have at the beginning. professor at the eliot school. and you have just asked politicians to be incredibly brave and not think about narrow reelection and to not think about power status, but to really push forward into the future. how are you going to give them incentives and bravery to follow through with changing architecture and those ways? >> , i think the policy can also be good politics. but we give you an analogy. the dean mentioned a little over

20 years ago i represent the united states. i thought about that as you consider the events of the year rose own today, because chancellor kohl was the chancellor of germany as that time and the founder of the monetary union. he had a phrase to use that i've always liked. it is the sign of a statesman is someone who recognizes fate as she rushes past. it is the notion that part of a good politician rising to the states person is someone that is astute enough to recognize the moment of the time and move with it. if you go back to 1989 there are a lot of voices in germany that said it was a pipe dream. i personally think the year rose

on is that a similar stage. for the success of the bureau's own, success of the countries, success of political leaders legacy, they have to now move to the point where they face fundamental decisions i talked about. in the case of that particular, you can address some of the issues with liquidity support from the european central bank for a while, but the fundamental choice to be made is, are you going to have a fiscal union that matches the monetary union? if so, there are lots of different ways that can be constructed. who will start to send out the design? in a case like europe you have to bring along other parties. kohl was affected by using the european commission. if you do not do that, then are you ready for the consequences for those that are flailing? i can take the case of united

states. i also took part in national elections, soy understand the tactical and short-term calculations. the lack of confidence i started to refer to in australia in august about economic leadership was the fact that people are looking for leaders to give them the straight story and some sense of direction. in the case of the united states, we're having a lot of debate about cutting what technicians called the discretionary spending, the year by year in you will budget, as opposed to dealing with the entitlement programs, primarily social security and health-care programs. and if somebody really wants to send a signal to market and send a signal of direction about the future of the country, some of us to lead on this issue.

part of the challenge of a good politician is knowing when to set out the leadership course and how to bring people along, but i will oppose the alternative, if you muddle through in your economy continues to decline or the euros own moves to a crisis and you do not have a plan, does not good for politics or ones like to see. and i have spent my life in trade and security and other areas trying to come up with things that have a sense of strategy, but also a sense of how you get there and build political support, but i believe in the international system, this is a moment where people will have to do that, but they need to recognize the changed circumstances. the key one being the rise of the emerging markets. there is potential and that arrangement. and by sticking your head in the san you will not deal with the problem. >> i am a professor in the

elliot school. i would like to ask you -- >> what is your discipline? >> international development studies. can you talk about how you see the world bank restructuring itself and the policies it is promoting in order to enable the achievement of your business? >> there is a multiplicity, but i think the starting point is to recognize that while we are called bank, that the primary purpose is not really finance. that is a little misleading for people, because they're used to banks planning and financial role. as i alluded to, when the world bank group is an institution, because real private-sector arms in different public-sector arms is most effective, it is able to combine three activities. it is able to acknowledge and

experience haand be able to customize it. speaking come up with a variety of different innovative forms for doing it. third, we had done almost $200 billion of commitment since the start of the financial crisis. big number, but in the larger scheme of things, not that significant compared to trillions. what we have to try to do is use those projects and funds to have a leveraged effect. they have an effect on building markets, maybe domestic currency bond markets. and maybe mike refine its

markets, maybe equity markets for institutions or capacity. therefore be able to leverage it further. there is another key aspect. to be able to do that as of institution, we have to see ourselves as a problem-solving client-oriented institution. the world bank has wonderful staff and incredibly-trained people, but one of the qualities i have been trying to encourage is that when a client has an issue, the job is not to analyze the problem, it is to solve the problem. it is not enough to bring the textbook solution. this brings us to the world economy, which i think is important for economist to understand how to try to transform and work with the leaders vs the challenges they face? another piece, and i think this is critically important for big, old institutions created

at the 20th-century is the openness and transparency. we're the first multilateral institution that greeted the freedom of information act. it is great for challenging us and opening the system, having people see behind the walls of this system not too far away and not that secretive and a dimension that i think will have even more power than i was talking about is open data and open information issues. the of opened up 7000 data sets free of charge. we of opened up competition for ops for development, and this is connected the bank in ways we would never seen before, and it is also picking up on the notion of democratizing development, that it is not a hierarchical system from universities coming up with the right solution, but instead engaging people in the

country. on a mapping google of system so you can get on our website and poll of the country, and then you can point your finger and learned the data about a certain project, and before long, i want to have the interactivity so people in the community can say this is what you think is happening, but let me tell you what is really happening, which is the best way to get at the corruption of issues. the teams i have talked about with transparency, governance, social accountability, in gauging civil society, those are not his words appeared in they are an integrated part of how institutions react. >> the students here in the front.

>> hello. i am a senior at the elliott school of undergraduate program. in your speech you talked a lot about reform adding the world of multi laterals. what is your vision for the world bank and its role or interaction with other multilateral organizations? >> going back to my opening comments were i referred to the fact that in 1944 you created three institutions. keep in mind that when the bank was first created it was the international bank for reconstruction development in the first loan was to france. and actually did not start to work with developing countries until a few years. the whole model, the world economy was so different than today. the most basic form, that was

the system whereby the capital flows were so limited and restricted, or the expectations were such that people thought you needed to be able to of this external source of capital because you would market it locally. increasingly, the bank needs to see itself as part of a network system. so we may work with some of the un agencies right now with the horn of africa or the world food program. in this century construction today means the bottom billion, the broken states, the afghanistans, the unique changes of integrating security development and governance. one reason i gave the speech he referred to was that i have been in those different universes, and i was quite surprised they

did not really communicate. the soldiers would say we need to create jobs quickly so people could be put to work. how do we try to connect these different pieces? that means working with part of the network, but private sector in developing and developed countries. it means working with ngos. in the last of the get speech i gave i talked about how the bank needs to play a role in helping developing the civil society groups and some of these countries, which is a little different for the bank, because we focus on support for the government or through the private sector, so we're looking at ways that we can be able to try to support the civil society groups to trades for -- support transparency, but also make the network different. least need to see ourselves as a

catalyst. in when i came to the bank the modelard intermediation not a was we would either raise loans or make the investment. we created an asset management corp. and now have an equity fund of $1 billion that is starting to do investments and -- in africa and latin america and other funds. if you think back, and i always recommend economic history to people as a good reference point. that would of been inconceivable in 1944 from 1950 or 1960 or 1970. the closest you got was the oil

shock. these are the types of things were part of my message today is some of the principles that people talked about in the twentieth century remain very important, but the world has changed. how you maintain the principles, but in a very different environment? the reason i stress that is there is always tendencies in the country to say we will go off by ourselves, we do not need these other players, we do not need to deal with multilateralism. i do not think that is right, and i think the u.s. would be more effective if it learns how to modernize and upgrade its own multilateral institutions. we a time for one more question. >> thank you very much for the speech. i am a student at the

international affairs. to go where you from in china? -- >> where are you from in china? >> [inaudible] from a chinese perspective, what are the incentives that would encourage china to be responsible stakeholder in what are the factors that might discourage them? >> good question. i was building of a speech i gave in 2005 when i was that the u.s. government and talking about u.s. policy towards china, and the game of the speech was encouraging china to be responsible caught the colder. the core logic of that speech rebates true today, which is over the past three years china has had this incredibly successful growth. about 10% a year over 30 years. i had the good fortune of visiting china in 1980 when i was living in hong kong, so i've

seen what an unbelievable difference it makes. when i visit china are you we strive to get the on meetings in beijing. just last week i was in the northeast province to try to get a sense of different developments. huge changes, but part of a vested was that china benefited from this system that was created after world war ii. the whole logic was to leverage off this economic system and do it in a pragmatic way. the first, and perhaps the core point is that china benefited from the security stability, a trade system, benefited from the international financial flows in investment. it had an interest, self interest in perpetuating, but

also adapting and modernizing the system. as china grows larger and a bigger part of the world economy, it is only more so. what happens in the year rose on will affect what happens in china or the united states. this is true for china and other emerging market countries as well, but what is difficult, and this is where the developed countries need to figure out the right balance or structure to this is that you still have 75 percent of the people earning under $2 per day who live in middle income countries. when i go to china and talk about sharing responsibilities and others, they say we still have a lot of poor people to deal with and a lot of development challenges. that is a reasonable point, but at the same time i counterpoint is china has grown so successfully and is now so large it cannot ignore -- ignore the

role in the international system. let me give you a very small and perhaps technical one, but it shows how this can work in progress. we have a fund for the 75 poorest countries called ida./ it gives grants or long-term loans without interest to the 79 poorest countries. because of the financing model we have to replenish it every three years. we just finished the 16 at replenishment -- replenishment. part of the money comes back from our own profits, part of it is real close and contributions from our own developed countries. when i first became president of in 2007, china i 2007ank

made its first contribution. for china, that is significant. britain and the united states are at the $4 billion level, but i went to the chinese authorities and said it is a tough time to be raising donor assistants. it would help if china pre-paid some of the funds from the past. economically it is not a big cost, but china is pre-paying early, billions of dollars of the funds. here is the way we raised $43,000,000,000.2015. this is a way in which emerging- market country can contribute at a slightly different fashion. part of the challenge -- we could go through other examples and climate change as well, that it is in the self-interest of china not to have keating that melds the glaciers and puts a

big danger for your country. it is in china's self-interest to have an open trading system so you can continue to benefit from it. it is in china's self-interest to have open capital investment markets. one of the reasons i was in china is they believe they need to make structural changes, as i alluded to in the speech, because they can no longer rely on the pure-export model. . part of this is the whole notion -- the reason i got into detail as i talked and broadcast dramatic terms. there is hard work and making this happen. it requires creativity and diplomacy. look at political history or economic history, that is not totally new, and that is the challenge that not only faces

the developed countries, but the emerging markets as well. thank you. [applause] b>> i think one of the most important lessons you conveyed was a lot of the changes that are needed are not just the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do. one can only hope leaders around the world will listen to this carefully and learn as much as we have over this past hour. i realize that as president the world bank you have to give addresses at many locations around the world, but i want to remind you in the future the most environmentally way for you to give a major address is to walk down the street and join us here. >> good exercise, too. [applause]

on behalf of my colleagues and especially on behalf of my students to present you with the small token of our very great appreciation and admiration. >> thank you very much. [applause] 1 closing word, since many of the students have to started the year, one of the reasons i wanted to come here is the types of things i am talking about are things that i hope to work on, and i am sure some of the faculty have worked on, but of country york from yountever have this incredible opportunity to be at this world-class university to focus on these questions, and issues i am talking about will not does be decided by chancellors and presidents that are in office today, but these will go on for a while. these will be your issues and

questions, so i think you have been blessed to have opportunity to get the education you have had so far and be here, but i always like universities because i think there's a great potential and power that comes from the next generation. one of the reasons i wanted to say these things is they will be many of your challenges to addressed, so thank you. [applause] >> this morning we will hear from the head of the securities and exchange commission about her agency's operation. she will testify at a hearing of the house financial-services committee. live coverage at 10:00 eastern span3.spaon c- house members are scheduled to debate a bill on the