The W orld B ank has always sold ideas, not just loans. Starting in 1996, then president J ames W olfensohn rebranded the B ank by articulating a formal vision of a “ K nowledge B ank”—a provider of state‐of‐the‐art expertise on development. After a number of internal changes and assessments, the Bank is acknowledging that it needs to be more humble, pluralistic, and practical. Why do some regard the B ank as a legitimate knowledge actor, whereas others contest that authority? We offer an analytical framework that can explain stakeholders' uneven recognition of the B ank's knowledge role. When stakeholders define knowledge as products, the B ank generally obtains recognition for the quality and quantity of the information it generates. This is the output dimension of legitimacy. On the other hand, when knowledge only counts as such to users who have been part of the process of creating it, the Bank finds itself with limited recognition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kramarz et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: