the origins of the world bank are of a piece with those of the imf. both are functions of the post world war 2 political world, of the particular diagnosis of fascism dear to the americans that linked it to economic crisis (rather than linking it to nationalism--not a wrong interpretation, but a partial one). you can explain all of this without recourse to the trilateral commission and other such pseudo-historical factors.
here is a cliffnotes style history of the two organizations:
http://tntn.essortment.com/worldbankinter_riaw.htm
the functions of the world bank have diverged considerably from it orgins, as a function of the large-scale shifts in capitalist organization--the transition from colonial to neo-colonial systems across the 1950s, peaking (in terms of transition, not implications) in 1960....the abandonment of the bretton woods system in 1972, the development of a globalizing capitalist order, etc.
for a good film analysis of how the world bank and imf operate, understood from the viewpoint of a particular case study (their impact on jamaica in general, its agricultural sector in particular, over the past decade or so) you should check out "life and debt"
it is in these contexts that the wolfowitz nomination should be situated, it seems to me.
wolfowitz has no experience in financial matters.
his policy initiatives have bordered on lunacy--see the war in iraq.
that bush would understand the world bank as a prize for wolfowitz, as reward for the iraq war--gives a pretty good indication of how out of touch with the real world this administration really is internally.
i cannot think of a single reason to support this nomination, not a single god thing that would come of it. in many ways, it is even more absurd than the bolton nomination to the un.