On Friday in the Rose Garden, President Obama rightly stated, "It is time for a development professional to lead the world's largest development agency." Both the importance and shelf life of this statement go well beyond the immediate expression of public support for Jim Yong Kim, the American nominee for the head of the World Bank.
Mr. Kim joins two other candidates for a position that will be vacated in June by Robert Zoellick, the current president of one of the most important multilateral institutions in the world. Through what it decides to do, and how it does it, the Bank has an outsized impact (good and bad) on the wellbeing of millions, if not billions of people in developing countries. And reflecting the ever-increasing role of these countries in the global economy, it also influences the prospects for others, including the United States.
It is therefore encouraging that Mr. Kim joins two other nominees who are also "development professionals" in their own right: Jose Antonio Ocampo, a professor at Columbia University who previously impressed as minister of finance of his native Colombia; and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the highly-respected Nigerian minister of finance who, in her prior position, excelled in the number two position at the Bank.
These three qualified candidates offer a different mix of expertise. For example, Mr. Kim is deeply knowledgeable on global health but has had less exposure to the range of development issues that the Bank deals with. The mix for Mr. Ocampo and Ms. Okonjo-Iweala is tilted much more in favor of top-down expertise, with much less in-depth command of global health.
This range of top-down versus bottom-up balance is an important consideration for the Bank's Executive Board, the body that is now charged with evaluating each candidate and making the appointment -- at least, it should be. You see, for almost 70 years, the Board has abided by a "tradition" that it always appoints a U.S. citizen to the presidency of the institution, regardless of his (and only men have occupied the post) qualifications and experience.
The U.S. is again in a position to insist that nationality prevail. With a weighted voting structure which reflects the world of yesterday rather than today, all it takes is for Europe to join the U.S. in retaining a nationality-based approach. And Europe has a huge incentive to do so given its eagerness to protect the other "tradition," whereby a European always heads the IMF (commonly called the Bank's "sister organization").
The world has an interest in seeing the Bank's Executive Board translate President Obama's statement into a thorough merit-based assessment of the three candidates. It can, and should do so by evaluating comprehensively each candidate, conducting proper background checks, and linking all this to the broader strategic goals of the institution -- a commonsensical approach that is essential to good governance and yet has been largely absent in prior selections of Bank and IMF heads.
This failure relates to another way in which President Obama's statement can be interpreted, and should. By noting that "it is time" to map a "development professional" to "the world's largest development agency," President Obama may also be suggesting that this was not done in the past. And he would be right.
Past American administrations have placed a lot less, if any emphasis on development qualifications. Their choices were governed by internal politics and bureaucratic largess. Indeed, in many cases, newly appointed leaders of the Bank (and IMF) embarked on a steep learning curve after finding themselves in the corner office, rather than before.
This reality should also be taken seriously by the Executive Board. Once it concludes its deliberations on the three candidates, it should discuss seriously how to hard wire a proper merit-based selection process that emphasizes qualifications and not nationality. And what the Bank does will influence the IMF's selection process, which remains outdated and feudalistic.
On Friday, President Obama took two important steps with respect to the world's premier development agency: He chose a "development professional" as America's nominee, and he stressed that the Bank's leader should have a deep understanding of "the role development plays in the world." Let us hope that this is reflected not just in the ultimate selection, but also in how the process breaks away from the old and harmful approach based on nationality and political favors.
http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/The-Great-Escape-April-2012.aspx
The World Bank is a bank of international fraud more than anything else. It exists, and provides funds in the form of loans to various international entities. The World Bank is a central figure (along with the IMF) in creating massive amounts of debt owed by 3rd world countries. This, in turn, puts these 3rd world countries at the mercy of the debt holders. Its not unlike a loan-shark operation.
Once in debt to the World Bank, the country becomes vulnerable to the sharks of industry who, for the most part, are looking for 'free money'. A loan is taken out to build schools, and after the money passes through a gauntlet of greedy industrialists and corrupted politicians, there might even be enough money left to pour the foundation for a school building.
What makes the World Bank such a tool for fraudulent enterprise is the lack of accountability on the part of the World Bank. One thing you will never see from the World Bank is an established track record of success regarding its loans - particularly considering the billions and billions of dollars that were spent.
For a good basic understanding of what the World Bank is supposed to do, the wikis on the World Bank and the World Bank Group are pretty good.
With all due respect:
The World Bank like the IMF, the World Trade Organisation, Davos & the World Economic Forum, the Fed & ECB....... They are all, one and the same!! And need to be packed away. Buried in a box, for a time capsule. Done away with. Completely.
Just changin the colour and/or place of birth - Of those who run/manage/work etc., at these companies, in these interchangeable groups...... Is not enough.
The thinking, the attitudes, the mind set, of all these men, in all these Institutes, are the same.
And then there is the fact that these Institutes have been, to put it mildly, very damaging to Developing Nations. As well as impacted the Economy in Developed Nations.
Why continue with them?
Why not change them?
Why use the same thinkers/the same thinking that caused the problems these Institutes are famous for?
Everytime, seems all we do is change the Wrapping Paper!!
The omission of “democratically elected”, from the job description, is intentional and expedient. The job title will of course be “god:2.0”, the supreme one too.
"Mr. Kim joins two other candidates"
Neither of which are Bill Black… defender of the double faith (law and order).
"These three qualified candidates offer a different mix of expertise."
Not including a proven track record of rooting out corruption.
"This range of top-down versus bottom-up balance is an important consideration for"
maintenance of an a**e-up’ards operation. Out of step with even the most basic requirements of civilised advancement.
"With a weighted voting structure"
its RIP Democracy, and QED the divine right of a few.
"in prior selections of Bank and IMF heads"
the qualifying question appears to have been: Can you promote the ethos of helping yourselves from the public purse, regardless of race creed or color?
"This reality should also be taken seriously"
What’s needed is a watchdog with real teeth. Not pet poodles with prosthetic molars.
"On Friday, President Obama took two important steps"
Both part of that same long and continuing walk, away from accountability.
who provides the money for development? the article doesn't say.
while the article we just read focuses on politics and is generally critical of America's historic involvement in the world bank, and european involvement in the IMF, the writer certainly could have
included more info and less desire for third world control of what appears to be another nations money.
by the way we are not reading news we are reading blogs. not just the comments but the article we are commenting on is not a news story it is a blog, hence the subtle criticism of american and the europeans without filling out the story.
is that what qualifies one to head a bank, advocacy?
sexual position? included in a post about underdeveloped world finance? sad what is in your mind.
What's next? A disaster expert running FEMA? Wasn't Brownie available for the World Bank job?
The WB needs a real economist to run things in a more humane and intelligent way. Stiglitz, Krugman, Amartya Sen[ even if not American], etc. Maybe that's why they were not even considered.