I think we all can appreciate the candor and the honesty with which Peter Heller addressed the IMF's attempts to deal with social dimensions of structural adjustment, and this is indeed a concern. Perhaps some people shared with me some concern or dismay at his comments about the lack of a powerful profile for countries and the lack of the effects of structural adjustment programs and policy options on the poor, especially in the face of decades and decades of emphasis on development and legions of development specialists going into the field, and many millions and millions of dollars being spent on development and aid research. On the other hand, when Terry Paccoud spoke, his presentation regarding the social dimensions of structural adjustment and all the multileveled attempts at data gathering, seemed to be just what Peter Heller needed in terms of his input. I am happy to report that the World Bank will give the IMF the information, it seems, when it is completed.
As I sat and listened to my colleagues, it seemed to me that it would be useful to discuss pluralism, to suggest what I see as a serious lack of pluralism in all of what we have been hearing, and to play, for a moment at least, the critic, or perhaps the devil's advocate, in identifying what seems to me to be problematic about that lack of pluralism.
One striking lack of pluralism, I suggest, is the institutional lack of pluralism in the whole array of structural adjustment. I've been working in this