James Wolfensohn, the president of the World Bank, has announced his intention to leave, and the search is on for a new head of the world's most important multilateral organization promoting development. The choice is especially important now, when poverty in the Third World is finally being recognized as our greatest problem and challenge.
The World Bank's designation as a "bank" understates its importance and its multifaceted roles. It does lend money to countries to undertake a variety of projects, and to help them through crises (such as the US$10 billion it provided to South Korea in 1997 to 1998). It has been, and is, playing a vital role in post-conflict reconstruction around the world.
But the bank also provides grants and low-interest loans to the poorest countries, particularly for education and health, and advises these countries on development strategies. It has often joined with the IMF in strong-arming countries into accepting this "advice": unless they do, they will not only be cut off by the IMF and the bank, but also by other donors, and capital markets will be discouraged from providing funds.
Sometimes -- its critics will say often -- the advice provided by the IMF and the bank is misguided. This was certainly true in the 1980s and early 1990s, when right-wing ideology dominated, producing a one-size-fits-all prescription entailing privatization, liberalization, and macroeconomic stability (meaning price stability), with little attention to employment, equity or the environment.
The term "bank" is a misnomer in a second sense: while the World Bank refers to its members as "shareholders," it is hardly a private bank. On the contrary, the World Bank is a global public institution. But, while the G-7 countries, which dominate voting at the bank, all declare their commitment to democracy and good governance -- and espouse promoting them as one of their central objectives -- there is a yawning gap between what they preach and what they practice.
Indeed, the entire process of choosing these international institutions' leaders is a historical anachronism that undermines their effectiveness and makes a mockery of the G-7 countries' commitment to democracy. This process, established at the outset 60 years ago, is framed by an agreement that an American would lead the World Bank and a European would lead the IMF. The US president would choose the Bank's head, and Europe would collectively decide on the IMF leader, with the understanding that the other side would exercise its veto only if a candidate were totally unacceptable.
Within the US, all major presidential appointments must be ratified by the Senate; even if rejections are rare, the vetting process is important, for the president knows that he can go only so far. But the presidency of the World Bank is a rare presidential plum -- an appointment that is not subject even to Congressional hearings.
How can advice on democratic reforms be taken seriously when the multilateral institutions that offer it do not subscribe to the same standards of openness, transparency, and participation that they advocate? Why should the search for Wolfensohn's successor be limited to an American (and especially an American loyal to a particular political party)? Why is the search process going on behind closed doors? Shouldn't these international public institutions be looking for the best-qualified person, regardless of race, religion, gender, or nationality?
The two names that have been floated so far -- presumably leaked as trial balloons -- are particularly disturbing. To put it bluntly, given the World Bank's importance, consideration of either putative US candidate, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz or former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carleton Fiorina, have been highly controversial around the world. Even if convention allows the US president to appoint the World Bank's head, the organization's success depends on the confidence of others. Neither Wolfowitz nor Fiorina have any training or experience in economic development or financial markets.
Of course, some past appointees turned out to be far better than anticipated; they rose to the occasion, despite qualifications that, in any open and objective selection process, would never even have left them on the short list. They proved that there is always a chance of outperforming. But this does not outweigh the risk of underperforming, which is why the best policy is to look for the best candidate.
There are some absolutely first-rate individuals who could step into the job, people who have shown their command of economic development, their intellect and personal integrity, and their political and managerial skills. Such potential candidates include former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, who holds a doctorate from Yale University and now teaches there and has been strongly supported in an editorial in the Financial Times; Arminio Fraga, who has a doctorate from Princeton and is a former head of Brazil's central bank; and Kemal Dervis, a former World Bank vice-president who has taught at Princeton and successfully managed one of Turkey's crises as finance minister.
Why should the world settle for anything less than candidates of this caliber?
It is time that the G-7 countries back up their democratic rhetoric with action. Many stood up to the US as it pushed for the war in Iraq. They were right to be skeptical about US claims of an imminent danger from weapons of mass destruction.
What is at stake here is no less important: the lives and well being of billions depend on a global war on poverty. Choosing the right general in that war will not assure victory, but choosing the wrong one surely enhances the chances of failure.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is a professor of economics at Columbia University and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to former US president Bill Clinton and chief economist and senior vice president at the World Bank. His most recent book is The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World's Most Prosperous Decade.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS