THE World Bank has long been seen as a trusted voice in global economic management. Its advice carries weight, and its recommendations are often treated as benchmarks for sound policy.

Yet, when one looks more closely at outcomes across countries, a different picture begins to emerge - one where the gap between theory and reality is difficult to ignore.

To understand why, it helps to go back to the beginning. The World Bank was created in the post-war era under the influence of the United States, at a time when the American economy was strong, productive, and globally dominant.

Its guidance reflected the thinking of a country that had earned its position through industrial strength and innovation.

But the world has changed. Today, the US carries a national debt exceeding US$35 trillion and rising. Yet there is little sense of urgency to address it.

This is largely because the strength of the US dollar no longer depends purely on economic fundamentals, but on the world's continued reliance on it.

Countries must produce, export and accumulate reserves in dollars, while the US can finance its deficits in ways others cannot. This imbalance becomes clearer as discussions around dedollarisation gain ground.

If countries begin to trade in alternative currencies, the US will have to do what every other nation does - live within its means and compete based on real economic strength.

It is not surprising, then, that such discussions are often met with resistance.

Against this backdrop, continued reliance on the World Bank's advice raises important questions.

Its recommendations tend to follow a familiar pattern - privatisation, market liberalisation, subsidy reduction and greater openness to foreign capital.

On paper, these ideas are appealing. In practice, they often fail to account for the realities on the ground.

This also raises a practical question that deserves greater scrutiny: why are resources being directed towards maintaining engagement with institutions such as the World Bank, including funding and representation, when their prescriptions often do not align with our economic realities?

At a time when national resources are finite, every ringgit must be justified in terms of tangible benefit to the domestic economy.

We have seen this play out in countries not unlike Malaysia. In Indonesia, subsidy removal during the Asian financial crisis led to a sharp rise in living costs and social unrest.

Thailand's rapid liberalisation exposed vulnerabilities that resulted in a severe currency collapse.

The Philippines, despite years of reform, continues to grapple with structural dependence on external capital. These are not abstract case studies - they are lived experiences.

It is a striking irony that Malaysia, a nation managing its own debt burden of around one trillion ringgit, still turns to the World Bank for guidance on economic direction - an institution created and dominated by the US, a country now holding over US$35 trillion of debt and struggling to restore its own competitiveness.

How does it make sense for us to accept financial and structural advice from a nation that has failed, and failed so miserably, at applying those same principles within its own borders?

The very architecture of the World Bank was built to serve US geopolitical and corporate interests, not to strengthen the self-sufficiency of developing countries.

Yet we continue to treat its recommendations as if they are objective, authoritative and universally beneficial.

The question is no longer whether the advice is sound. The question is why we continue to listen to a tutor who has never passed the subject they insist on teaching.

Malaysia's own experience tells a different story. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the country chose not to follow conventional advice. Instead, it imposed capital controls, stabilised the ringgit, and supported domestic institutions.

These decisions were controversial at the time, but they helped Malaysia recover more quickly and avoid deeper social and economic damage.

Importantly, the government also stepped in to support struggling companies, protecting jobs and preventing wider collapse.

The contrast with the 2008 global financial crisis is hard to ignore. When major financial institutions in the US and Europe were at risk, large-scale bailouts were quickly put in place.

The principle of "no bailouts," so often emphasised for developing countries, was quietly set aside. What was discouraged in one context became necessary in another.

More recently, policy decisions such as increasing diesel prices raise similar concerns.

Diesel is not just another commodity - it affects the entire economy, from transport to food production.

Any increase inevitably feeds through to higher costs for businesses and households. A purely technical approach to subsidy reform risks missing these broader impacts.

Even countries that are not major producers, such as India, have at times reduced diesel prices to ease inflationary pressures and support domestic demand. This highlights the importance of flexibility and context in economic policymaking.

Even within the global economic establishment, there is recognition of these shortcomings.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate and former chief economist of the World Bank, once observed that institutions such as the IMF and similar multilateral financial bodies are often staffed by "third-rate economists from first-rate universities."

His remark underscores a deeper truth: economics is not an exact science, but a social one, requiring sensitivity to national context and human impact.

The path forward requires confidence, clarity and a willingness to put national priorities first.

Sustainable growth is not borrowed - it is built. It cannot come from uncritical reliance on institutions whose track record offers, at best, mixed results across the developing world. Listening selectively is prudent; following blindly is not.

Malaysia has, in the past, demonstrated that it can chart its own course and succeed. That experience should not be an exception, but a guide.

The challenge today is not a lack of options, but the willingness to trust our own judgment.

True economic strength lies not in adopting external templates, but in shaping policies that reflect our own structure, priorities and aspirations.

*The writer holds an MBA from the University of Strathclyde in the UK awarded through the prestigious British Chevening Scholarship. With the extensive experience in the financial markets and robust background in management education, he has also served a prominent think-tank. The opinion expressed are his own and not necessarily represent the views of Business Times.