Platform:The World Bank was set up in 1944 under the name of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, writes  Sheila O'Flanagan.

Its original role was to lead worldwide reconstruction after the ravages of the second World War, but these days it offers loans and grants to developing countries.

Bank however is a misnomer; it is really a global development agency and its mission statement is simply to help reduce poverty. Given its historical roots in redevelopment after war, it continues to play a major role in this area.

Which is probably why most people were surprised (and many furious) when Paul Wolfowitz was appointed as its head in 2005. After all, Wolfie (as he's not always affectionately known) was one of Bush's hardline neocon cronies - a man seen as more in tune with the war effort than the aftermath.

Not exactly the kind of person you'd expect to take up the reins at an agency with a philanthropic mission statement.

Wolfie went in with all guns blazing, vowing to tackle government corruption in the developing countries that were receiving World Bank assistance. Not everyone approved of his methods, though they agreed there was a problem.

Part of the problem though, as far as they were concerned, was Wolfie himself.

Wolfowitz's own problem is that he is always convinced he is right.

However he has found himself up the creek with no paddle when news broke that he had negotiated a promotion for his partner who was already a World Bank employee.

Because the World Bank doesn't approve of inter-office romances (owing to potential conflicts of interest, although in this case it didn't make any difference - and what are the chances of companies ever stopping them?), Shaha Riza was transferred to the US State Department when Wolfowitz took up his job.

However, complaints were made that she received promotions and salary increases that were "grossly out of line" with the norm. Wolfowitz had requested that she retain her bank salary and benefits even while working for the State Department.

In a televised speech, Wolfowitz last week said he wished he had gone with his instincts and not become involved in her career moves. He apologised and asked for understanding on the basis he had only just taken up the job and it was all new to him.

So - you have just been appointed president of a major financial institution and the first thing you do is get involved in negotiating your girlfriend's pay and conditions? It is hard to imagine a more appalling error of judgment. But then Wolfowitz seems to specialise in errors of judgment despite the fact his supporters paint him as a dedicated public servant. A dedicated public servant who wants things done his own way!

It is, of course, refreshing to hear someone admit they "made a mistake", which Wolfowitz did, but this was an elementary mistake. Naturally it has severely dented his credibility as an anti-corruption campaigner. Who wants to be lectured on corruption by someone telling them to "do as I say, not as I do"?

Negotiating preferential pay and conditions for his girlfriend might only be a faint blip on the corruption radar - but for a man who espouses zero tolerance, any blip is a major one.

The gossip last month was that he and Riza had split up, although nobody was sure why, but she has now given interviews saying she was fed up that she had to move jobs in the first place (despite the whopping salary increases).

Meanwhile questions are also being asked about other appointments Wolfie made.

His "special advisers" are two former Bush administration officials who were apparently given salaries in line with more qualified officials. Clearly, whatever advice they were dishing out for the money, it wasn't the kind of basic advice that would have prevented him from meddling in something he should have avoided.

In stating that he wasn't going to resign, that the job was "too important", Wolfie was trotting out the line of all failed politicians: "I may have made a mess of things but I won't be hounded out of office by the baying masses."

It's not just the masses though who are baying for his blood. Hanging on may be something you can do in the short term, but when the whole team is against you, something's got to give.

Wolfowitz, in yet another monumental error of judgment, seems to think it's all about brazening things out.

www.sheilaoflanagan.net