The fact that Wolfowitz was key to the December 2003 decision to bar companies from non-Coalition countries from contracts in Iraq suggests that Wolfowitz was less concerned, at least in that instance, with economic development than with employing funds to punish those who did not support the American invasion.
Barring foreign companies simply reduced competition--increasing the prices paid by Iraqis and Americans to get development done. Few economists would have supported such a move.
Note that it was also dressed up as a security enhancing move, which makes one wonder about the integrity of those making that claim (because subcontracting was still open to non-Coalition companies).
That hardly bodes well for someone who is supposed to champion the interests of the world's poor, not those of American corporations or those who abided by American political directives. I understand that his role will be different, but this fact does make one wonder about what interests Wolfowitz would promote in his new position.