We should all care about who heads the World Bank
Ours is a world of states. Yet none of these states can isolate itself from what happens elsewhere. All can learn from one another. All are threatened by the spread of terrorism, gangsterism, pollution, disease and war. All can benefit from flows of ideas, trade and investment. How then is a world of sovereign states to achieve such aims? “Through international institutions” is a big part of the answer.
Apart from those who work for, advise, or depend directly on these institutions, few feel affection for them. Yet, however unpopular and imperfect they may be, international institutions perform invaluable functions. This is unquestionably true of the three economic institutions whose heads will soon depart: the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
James Wolfensohn will leave the bank at the end of May, Supachai Panitchpakdi will quit the WTO at the end of August and Donald Johnston will leave the OECD in June 2006. Who cares who replaces them? I do and so, I suggest, should you. These institutions need to be headed by first-rate people, not by the mediocrities that governments too often prefer.
The least controversial function of these institutions is the provision of relevant, reliable and internationally comparable data and analysis. Information is a classic public good. We should be grateful for how well these institutions do their job.
Yet they do vastly more than that. The OECD is the think-tank of the advanced liberal democracies. It encourages member governments to learn from one another over the whole range of their policies. The WTO oversees the agreements that underpin today's open global economy. The bank is the chief repository of practical wisdom and the dominant operational agency in economic development.
These institutions matter. As the founding fathers of the post-second world war order understood, neither ad hoc co-operation nor imperial domination could underpin the more co-operative, predictable and economically open world they sought. Unbridled sovereignty had foundered in the calamities of the 1914-45 era. What were needed, instead, were durable institutions. These institutions would not replace states but build on them, thereby creating durable habits of co-operation.
That wisdom still stands. States remain able to achieve more through structured institutions than acting either on their own or through ad hoc arrangements. Even the US, mightiest of all, must be beginning to recognise this logic. It is, accordingly, in the interest of their members for these institutions to be both well managed and directed at their core goals.
This then should also be the overriding concern in choosing new leaders. Nationality should be (but, alas, is not) irrelevant. Why should individual Americans believe the World Bank needs to be headed by a fellow citizen? US influence does not depend on this. The head of an international institution will always respond to the desires of its more powerful members.
The best way to choose new leaders is clear. A search committee should be set up. It should draw up a shortlist of suitable candidates. The organisation's executive body should then choose from among them. If the best candidate for the World Bank were, say, an Indian, he or she should be selected.
That, needless to say, is not what happens. In the WTO, discord over the national origin of the director-general was institutionalised in the unhappy agreement on successive three-year terms for Mike Moore and Mr Supachai. The US has always chosen the head of the World Bank, just as Europeans have always selected the head of the International Monetary Fund. The Republicans have had a particularly miserable record in making their choice.
Yet, even if the procedure continues to be defective, we can still ask what we need in the new heads of these institutions. Some characteristics are evident: probity, relevant experience, managerial ability and personal authority. But the most important quality is leadership.
The OECD is a think-tank with an expanding membership: it needs someone able to guide its intellectual development and reach out to new members, particularly in advancing Asia. The WTO is the secretariat of complex agreements aimed at an open trading system: it needs someone able to sell its mission, understand the detail and, where necessary, reach out to the governments on which agreements depend.
The World Bank is both a think-tank and an operational agency. It needs a leader who is morally and intellectually engaged. It also needs someone able to set priorities and deal with the conflicting pressures from the principal donor governments, developing country borrowers and the demanding, and often destructive, activist community.
Of these institutions, the bank is arguably the most important and certainly the most difficult to manage. It is most important because it is the principal source of experience and advice for tackling what remains humanity's greatest moral challenge: the elimination of extreme poverty. It is the most difficult to manage because of its size and the multiplicity of pressures on it.
I have been persuaded by Sebastian Mallaby's excellent book on James Wolfensohn that the latter has big achievements to his credit.* Among them are the broaching of debt relief, the emphasis on corruption, the move away from lending targets and the decentralisation of bank management to the regions. I admire Mr Wolfensohn's passion and commitment if not his managerial abilities. What is now needed is a ruthless focus on the bank's core task: helping to generate economic growth and improved welfare in the world's poorest countries, predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa.
I do not wish to name names. It is far more important to emphasise the significance of these choices. These institutions represent a pledge of purposive co-operation. The choices matter not just for what thenew leaders will bring to these agencies. They also show what we consider important. If we choose hacks, we will make a declaration of our indifference to effective co-operation. Such choices would hardly be a surprise. They would be a tragedy,
all the same.
我们都应关心谁当世行行长
我们的世界由国家组成，没有任何一个国家可以与其它地区发生的事情相隔绝。所有国家彼此间都可以互相学习。所有国家都受到恐怖主义、犯罪、污染、疾病和战争的威胁。所有国家都可以从思想、贸易和投资的流动中获益。那么，在一个由主权国家组成的世界中，我们应如何实现这些目标呢？“通过国际机构和组织”是一种重要的解决方案。
除了在国际组织中任职、为这些组织提供咨询或直接依靠这些组织的人以外，很少有人喜欢国际组织。然而无论多么不受人欢迎，多么不够完善，国际组织和机构的职能价值却是无可估量的。有三家国际经济组织担当得起这一说法：世界银行(World Bank)、世贸组织(World Trade Organisation)和经济合作与发展组织(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)。这三家组织的领导人都将很快离任。
世界银行现任行长詹姆斯?沃尔芬森(James Wolfensohn)将于5月底离任，世贸组织总干事素帕猜(Supachai Panitchpakdi)将于8月底离任，而经合组织秘书长唐纳德?约翰斯顿(Donald Johnston)将于2006年6月离任。哪些人在关注谁将继任呢？我在关注，而且建议你们也应关注。这些组织的领导人应由第一流的人选，而非各国政府都偏爱的平庸之辈来担任。
这些国际组织最不会引起争议的职能，就是提供有用、可靠和能够用于国际间比较的数据和分析。信息是典型的公益产品。我们应该感谢这些组织的高质量工作。
这些国际组织从事的工作远不仅如此。“经合组织”是发达国家的智囊组织。 该组织鼓励成员国政府彼此间就所有范围内的政策互相学习和借鉴。而世贸组织则负责监督用于支持当前开放全球经济的相关协议。世界银行则堪称实际经验的最大智囊库，同时是促进经济发展的主导性运作机构。
这些组织的存在具有重要意义。正如二战后世界秩序的缔造者所认识到的，他们所追求的合作程度更高、更具可预测性和经济更开放的世界，这既不能依靠权宜合作，也不能依靠帝国主义式的统治实现。在1914至1945年这段遭遇过巨大灾难的不幸时期，曾经不可一世的国家纷纷轰然倒下，能够长期运作的国际组织成为时代的需要。这些国际组织不会取代主权国家，它们需要依赖主权国家，在国家间确立能够长久保持的合作习惯。
这一理念仍具有现实意义。与各国单独行事或将开展临时性质的合作相比，各国通过机构化的国际组织合作能够取得更大的成果。即便是最强大的美国，也一定开始意识到这个道理。相应的，只有这些国际组织得到很好的管理，并且以成员国的核心目标为导向，才能够取得成员国的信赖。
在选择这些组织的新任领导人时，以上要求同样也应成为压倒一切的考虑要素。国籍不应成为考虑因素（然而事实上却是）。为什么美国人坚持认为世界银行行长需要由美国公民来担任？美国的影响力，并不需要区区一个世行行长来支持，因为国际组织领导人总是会对其强大成员国的愿望作出回应。
选择国际组织新任领导人的最佳方式也就明确了。应该组建一个调查委员会，负责挑选合适人选，拟定候选人名单。该国际组织的执行机构应从这些候选人中产生。如果世界银行行长的最佳人选是印度籍人士，那么就应该选他（她）作行长。
然而不用说，这自然是行不通的。拿世贸组织来说，经过痛苦的妥协之后，各国不得不同意由麦克?穆尔(Mike Moore)和素帕猜分别担任任期三年的总干事职位，这也使得各国对总干事国籍的争执上升到了制度化层面。世界银行行长的人选则永远由美国决定，正如国际货币基金组织主席永远由欧洲人选定一样。美国共和党人(The Republicans)一直以来的抉择记录都极为糟糕。
即便选举程序仍旧有效，我们仍可以问问自己，对这些组织的新任领导人需要有哪些要求。一些素质显然是必需的：正直、具备相关经验、管理能力和个人权威。但最重要的素质是领导能力。
经合组织作为一个智囊机构，其成员国数目正在增加，因此需要有人对它的发展思想提出指导，同时扩大成员范围，特别是发展中的亚洲地区。世贸组织则堪称一系列复杂协议的秘书处，这些协议旨在实现开放的贸易机制。因此，世贸组织需要有人能够推广自己的使命，掌握相关详细工作内容，并在必要时联系各国政府，因为各国政府才是这些协议的基础和根本。
世界银行既是智囊机构，也是执行机构。世界银行行长的人选需要在道德规范和智识水准两个领域能够全力投入。各主要捐赠国、发展中国家中的债务国，以及要求过于苛刻和经常制造危害的激进组织等等都会在现实中产生利益冲突，这给世界银行带来压力。因此，世行行长不但能够对此排定工作重点，而且还要能够处理好这些压力。
在三个组织中，世界银行无疑最重要也最难管理。世行之所以重要，就在于人类目前最大的道德挑战，仍然是消除绝对贫困，而解决这一挑战所需的经验和建议主要来源于世界银行。世界银行规模巨大，承受多种压力，这是其难以管理的原因所在。
我看过塞巴斯蒂安?马拉比(Sebastian Mallaby)关于詹姆斯?沃尔芬森的好书。书中认为，詹姆斯?沃尔芬森在工作中成绩卓著，同时为个人赢得了荣誉*，我对此表示认同。詹姆斯?沃尔芬森所取得的成绩，包括率先推行债务减免政策，重点打击腐败，调整贷款对象和实现世行管理层的权力分散，即将世行管理人员派驻世界各地。我钦佩詹姆斯?沃尔芬森先生的热情和全力投入，但不佩服他的管理能力。我们目前需要坚决将工作重点放在世行的核心任务，也就是促进经济增长，改善世界最穷国家（绝大多数是撒哈拉以南非洲国家）的福祉。
我并不打算在这里提出人选的名单，强调选择的重要性要比这重要得多。这些组织存在，意义就在于它们能够让合作更加富有目的性，并为此提供承诺和保证。选择新的领导人的之所以重要，不仅仅在于这些人能够为这些组织带来什么。同时也显示出，我们认为什么最重要。如果我们选择惟命是从的政府人员，就等于宣告我们对实现有效的国际合作漠不关心。如果我们做出这样的选择，也并不会出乎意料，但是那只会是个可悲的结局。
* 《世界的银行家》(The World’s Banker)(企鹅出版社出版) (Penguin Press)
