The World Bank is supposed to work with poor countries in distress. When it all goes well, the Bank supports reformers with advice and money. Sometimes, however, the Bank prolongs a country’s pain by throwing a lifeline to recalcitrant regimes. The difference between a helping hand and a counterproductive crutch requires the Bank to understand the trends inside a country and how its own actions might affect those dynamics. Often, it’s difficult to discern these subtleties.
CGD Policy Blogs
Last week the World Bank announced the process for choosing the next president of the organization. Minutes after midnight on the first day nominations were to be accepted, the US formally nominated the incumbent Jim Kim. Other nominations are possible in what is, allegedly, an “open, merit-based, and transparent” process, but which will only be “open” for three weeks. Here are five women who could ably lead the World Bank.
Historically the World Bank’s President was nominated by the USA and that person was then approved by the World Bank’s Board (and in a reciprocal agreement Europe nominated the head of the IMF). Now, discussions have begun “over how and whether to reappoint” Jim Yong Kim, when his first term ends next June. I agree with the World Bank Staff Association that we need to be able to have confidence in this process.
A multi-year project just came to fruition with the endorsement by the Board of the World Bank of its new set of safeguards—the social and environmental standards that govern Bank-funded projects in client countries. CGD's expert on multilateral development banks, senior fellow Scott Morris, reacted to the new policies in a recent blog post, and joins me this week on the CGD Podcast to discuss.