The World Bank Needs to Free Itself
If there is one lesson that we should draw from the current troubles at the World Bank, it is that this supposedly multilateral institution should put an end to its 40 year-old custom of having its president be a political appointee of the U.S. President. Why is it a good idea for the world's pre-eminent international development organization to be consistently led by individuals who have little or no international development credentials? Generally the person appointed to be the World Bank President is either someone that might otherwise be awarded a plum ambassadorship such as France (usually because of a good record of funding campaigns) OR someone that needs to be put out to pasture in a dignified way (McNamara and Wolfowitz). Either way, it is not such a good deal for the world's poor or for the thousands of World Bank employees who have decades of development experience and expertise and who must then follow the lead of a person with almost no development qualifications. No wonder all the NGOs are chronically annoyed with the World Bank.
And this isn't the first time, by the way, that the institution has been led by an architect of a failed war. In the 1970s, the World Bank was led by none other than Robert McNamara of Vietnam War fame. The difference is that McNamara used the role to begin his long slow personal rehabilitation back to being a thinking, functioning individual (this came to its full fruition when he admitted his mistakes in "The Fog of War") and amazingly this made him a better World Bank President than Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz has not learned anything from failure, has brought his wrong-headed zeal with him to the World Bank, and is still trying to promote neo-con ideals in his new role. For example, he is obsessed with trying to open a large World Bank office in Baghdad, but he can't even get anyone to take the job of Country Director. After all, what suicidal fool would want to be Wolfowitz's man in Baghdad right now? Even at $300,000 a year with a 100%+ post allowance, no one will take that job. And yet Wolfowitz believes!
Now is the time for the Board of Directors of the World Bank to do its job and resolve to end the practice of allowing the World Bank President to be appointed by the President of the United States. Instead the World Bank President should be chosen through a vote participated in by the Finance Ministers of major donor countries AND of major borrowing countries. This would create a more effective result and would free the World Bank from its current status as a faux multilateral institution.
And this isn't the first time, by the way, that the institution has been led by an architect of a failed war. In the 1970s, the World Bank was led by none other than Robert McNamara of Vietnam War fame. The difference is that McNamara used the role to begin his long slow personal rehabilitation back to being a thinking, functioning individual (this came to its full fruition when he admitted his mistakes in "The Fog of War") and amazingly this made him a better World Bank President than Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz has not learned anything from failure, has brought his wrong-headed zeal with him to the World Bank, and is still trying to promote neo-con ideals in his new role. For example, he is obsessed with trying to open a large World Bank office in Baghdad, but he can't even get anyone to take the job of Country Director. After all, what suicidal fool would want to be Wolfowitz's man in Baghdad right now? Even at $300,000 a year with a 100%+ post allowance, no one will take that job. And yet Wolfowitz believes!
Now is the time for the Board of Directors of the World Bank to do its job and resolve to end the practice of allowing the World Bank President to be appointed by the President of the United States. Instead the World Bank President should be chosen through a vote participated in by the Finance Ministers of major donor countries AND of major borrowing countries. This would create a more effective result and would free the World Bank from its current status as a faux multilateral institution.
Posted at 4/16/2007 02:03:00 PM UTC
Permanent Link
3 Comment(s):
Is that a change that could take place? Can they change how the position in filled?
Well, yes...in theory. The board of directors of the World Bank has to approve each appointment for President of the World Bank. This board is made of one representative from each of the major lending/donor countries, i.e. U.S., Japan, Britain, France, etc. plus a few recipient countries such as China. It just so happens that the board has always approved whoever the U.S. President appoints. This has generally been widely accepted in that the U.S. has always been the biggest financial contributor to the World Bank. However, there is no actual rule written anywhere that it HAS to be an appointment by the U.S. President, that is just the custom. Similarly, it is the custom that the EU countries get to appoint one of their own as the IMF head.
I would think the way forward would be for the World Bank to accept that if there were a form of voting for this, that the votes could be weighted to reflect the amounts of money and resources that individual lender/donor countries put into the system. Alternatively, the World Bank could trim its sails and say that U.S. contribution should be diminished thus making it more reasonable that the U.S. accept diminished influence. That is unlikely.
In any case, it would even be an improvement for the world financial community to say that, yes the World Bank President must be an American and we all accept that, but it must be an American that has been chosen from a pool of highly and specifically qualified Americans instead of it just being whoever it is that the whim of the U.S. President tells him to appoint.
Interesting. It used to be custom that the U.S. didn't invade other countries, but that's no longer the case. I should think we can do away with a few other customs.
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.