Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Choosing the President of the World Bank
On Zoo Station, we have discussed several times the process behind the selection of the heads of the World Bank and the IMF. In particular, the American and European ability to carve up the job between themselves without really giving a damn what the rest of the world thinks is a serious problem. Especially since the World Bank has ostensibly been set up to help people who reside entirely outside of Europe and the United States. Someday, this will change, as will the makeup of the Security Council of the United Nations. Until then, we have no option but to wonder what will happen when Jim Wolfensohn steps down at some point this year, under pressure from the Bush administration.
Wolfensohn has been one of the best things that happened to the World Bank. He helped change its focus from mega projects (giant hydel dams etc) to more manageable, community-oriented projects. More importantly, the World Bank learnt that bottom-up development may be a better solution than top-down, centrally planned development. They also learnt to consult with NGO's and other constituents on the ground rather than just depend on economists sitting in Washington D.C. Finally, they learnt that development was a process that could not be viewed entirely through the prism of economics. Of course, the critics of the Bank remain trenchant in their criticism, and to some extent they have a point, in that the Bank probably needs to reform its development agenda a great deal more. But, even they have to admit that under Jim Wolfensohn the World Bank did turn a corner.
So, what happens when Wolfensohn retires? Will the Bush administration appoint a right-wing ideologue, for instance? It was initially thought that Robert Zoellick would be Bush's choice, but Zoellick is out of the running now that he is underling to Condi Rice at the State Dept. Who then? Today's New York Times ran a speculative piece on the names being considered by the administration and there are some HUGE surprises in there. Namely, Carly Fiorina and Paul Wolfowitz.
Carleton S. Fiorina, who lost her job as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard almost three weeks ago, has emerged as a strong candidate to become president of the World Bank, according to an official in the Bush administration. Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, was also under serious consideration, according to the official, who refused to be identified because discussion about the candidates is continuing.
The short list also includes Randall L. Tobias, global AIDS coordinator for the White House, who is a former chief executive of Eli Lilly & Company, and John B. Taylor, under secretary of the Treasury for international affairs. M. Peter McPherson, former president of Michigan State University, is no longer considered a leading candidate. A long shot is Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, who is a specialist on aid and development. The decision rests on several factors, including the results of consultations with members of the World Bank, politics within the Bush administration and a closer scrutiny of the candidates.
Now, will the Defense Dept's gain (if Wolfowitz were to leave) become the World Bank's loss? For that matter, does it make sense for Carly Fiorina, fresh from nearly running HP into the ground, to become the leading spokesperson for the world's poor? Okay, maybe I am being facetious here. Wolfowitz does have some formidable international policy experience and he may in fact be a half decent choice at the Bank, if the Bush administration can contain the huge worldwide protests that are a certainty if the chief architect of the Iraq War becomes president of the Bank. Carly Fiorina, on the other hand, I am less hopeful about. Sure, she's glamorous and probably is a reasonable communicator, but I am not sure that's qualification enough.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times lead editorial throws up an entirely unlikely name into the fray -- Bono. Mind you, this is not the Bush administration's idea, but simply an idea the LAT has thrown up.
Don't be fooled by the wraparound sunglasses and the excess hipness. Bono is deeply versed in the issues afflicting the least-developed nations of the world, as former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill learned when he traveled the continent with the musician. O'Neill, an uber-wonk, came back singing Bono's praises. Bono even brought ultra-conservative Sen. Jesse Helms to tears by relating poverty in Africa to passages in the Bible. Bono may not have a PhD in economics, but he'd have plenty of real economists around the bank to consult. Bono is the most eloquent and passionate spokesman for African aid in the Western world. And given that both ex-President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have in recent years made Africa one of their focuses, that's saying something.
Bono led the Drop the Debt campaign in 2000, seeking to forgive billions in loans to the Third World, and in 2002 he co-founded Debt, AIDS and Trade in Africa, a serious group that seeks to raise awareness of Africa's problems and lobby governments to help solve them. It could hardly ask for a better spokesman than its founder, whose fame has helped open doors that other lobbyists spend decades trying to crack. Bono could enhance the World Bank's image and sell its poverty-reduction mission far more effectively than the other deserving candidates being mentioned for the job, which traditionally goes to an American — a tradition that deserves to be broken, even if not in favor of the Irish rock star.
It's an interesting idea, but that's all it is. There is no way the LAT or anyone else will convince the Bush administration to hand the job to anyone but an American. There's no way, I think, anyone is going to convince Bono to leave U2 either. And so it should be. However, I read a few letters published in the LAT in response to this editorial, and some of them seemed to suggest that the biggest problem with Bono's candidature is that he has no international development experience. I suppose Carly Fiorina does?
Wolfensohn has been one of the best things that happened to the World Bank. He helped change its focus from mega projects (giant hydel dams etc) to more manageable, community-oriented projects. More importantly, the World Bank learnt that bottom-up development may be a better solution than top-down, centrally planned development. They also learnt to consult with NGO's and other constituents on the ground rather than just depend on economists sitting in Washington D.C. Finally, they learnt that development was a process that could not be viewed entirely through the prism of economics. Of course, the critics of the Bank remain trenchant in their criticism, and to some extent they have a point, in that the Bank probably needs to reform its development agenda a great deal more. But, even they have to admit that under Jim Wolfensohn the World Bank did turn a corner.
So, what happens when Wolfensohn retires? Will the Bush administration appoint a right-wing ideologue, for instance? It was initially thought that Robert Zoellick would be Bush's choice, but Zoellick is out of the running now that he is underling to Condi Rice at the State Dept. Who then? Today's New York Times ran a speculative piece on the names being considered by the administration and there are some HUGE surprises in there. Namely, Carly Fiorina and Paul Wolfowitz.
Carleton S. Fiorina, who lost her job as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard almost three weeks ago, has emerged as a strong candidate to become president of the World Bank, according to an official in the Bush administration. Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, was also under serious consideration, according to the official, who refused to be identified because discussion about the candidates is continuing.
The short list also includes Randall L. Tobias, global AIDS coordinator for the White House, who is a former chief executive of Eli Lilly & Company, and John B. Taylor, under secretary of the Treasury for international affairs. M. Peter McPherson, former president of Michigan State University, is no longer considered a leading candidate. A long shot is Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, who is a specialist on aid and development. The decision rests on several factors, including the results of consultations with members of the World Bank, politics within the Bush administration and a closer scrutiny of the candidates.
Now, will the Defense Dept's gain (if Wolfowitz were to leave) become the World Bank's loss? For that matter, does it make sense for Carly Fiorina, fresh from nearly running HP into the ground, to become the leading spokesperson for the world's poor? Okay, maybe I am being facetious here. Wolfowitz does have some formidable international policy experience and he may in fact be a half decent choice at the Bank, if the Bush administration can contain the huge worldwide protests that are a certainty if the chief architect of the Iraq War becomes president of the Bank. Carly Fiorina, on the other hand, I am less hopeful about. Sure, she's glamorous and probably is a reasonable communicator, but I am not sure that's qualification enough.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times lead editorial throws up an entirely unlikely name into the fray -- Bono. Mind you, this is not the Bush administration's idea, but simply an idea the LAT has thrown up.
Don't be fooled by the wraparound sunglasses and the excess hipness. Bono is deeply versed in the issues afflicting the least-developed nations of the world, as former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill learned when he traveled the continent with the musician. O'Neill, an uber-wonk, came back singing Bono's praises. Bono even brought ultra-conservative Sen. Jesse Helms to tears by relating poverty in Africa to passages in the Bible. Bono may not have a PhD in economics, but he'd have plenty of real economists around the bank to consult. Bono is the most eloquent and passionate spokesman for African aid in the Western world. And given that both ex-President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have in recent years made Africa one of their focuses, that's saying something.
Bono led the Drop the Debt campaign in 2000, seeking to forgive billions in loans to the Third World, and in 2002 he co-founded Debt, AIDS and Trade in Africa, a serious group that seeks to raise awareness of Africa's problems and lobby governments to help solve them. It could hardly ask for a better spokesman than its founder, whose fame has helped open doors that other lobbyists spend decades trying to crack. Bono could enhance the World Bank's image and sell its poverty-reduction mission far more effectively than the other deserving candidates being mentioned for the job, which traditionally goes to an American — a tradition that deserves to be broken, even if not in favor of the Irish rock star.
It's an interesting idea, but that's all it is. There is no way the LAT or anyone else will convince the Bush administration to hand the job to anyone but an American. There's no way, I think, anyone is going to convince Bono to leave U2 either. And so it should be. However, I read a few letters published in the LAT in response to this editorial, and some of them seemed to suggest that the biggest problem with Bono's candidature is that he has no international development experience. I suppose Carly Fiorina does?
