The Economist has joined a string of internet commentators in endorsing Nigerian Minister of Finance to become the next president of the World Bank. Contrasted against the resume of Obama’s choice for the Bank, Ngozi wins. By miles.
According to the Economist:
The World Bank is the world’s premier development institution. Its boss needs experience in government, in economics and in finance (it is a bank, after all). He or she should have a broad record in development, too. Ms Okonjo-Iweala has all these attributes, and Colombia’s José Antonio Ocampo has a couple. By contrast Jim Yong Kim, the American public-health professor whom Barack Obama wants to impose on the bank, has at most one.
However, it is interesting that in all the debate no one has talked about HOW Ngozi will change the Bank’s operations, besides insinuations that she has hands on experience in transforming Nigeria’s public finances, coupled with her previous experience at the Bank.
More importantly, what would be the cost to Nigeria if they lose Ngozi? Is this important at all?
Ngozi leading the bank will probably make a difference. However, I think that support for her candidacy has thus far been too one-sided. Nigeria, like much of the developing world, does not have much influence on the Bank’s board. Nigeria also stands to lose one of its ablest technocrats just when it is striving to reform its public finances. These considerations should matter too, I think.
Just for the record, I am one of those who think that it would be really cool to have Ngozi lead the Bank (despite the fact that she probably will not).
**********************************************
Update: I just came across some interesting thoughts on Ngozi’s nomination over at Africa is A Country (H/T Chad).
kenopalo.com 
Ngozi leading the bank will probably make a difference. However, I think that support for her candidacy has thus far been too one-sided. Nigeria, like much of the developing world, does not have much influence on the Bank’s board. Nigeria also stands to lose one of its ablest technocrats just when it is striving to reform its public finances. These considerations should matter too, I think.
These are all valid points that I’m yet to see brought up elsewhere. There is still room for Okonjo Iweala to make more changes in Nigeria’s finance sector.
LikeLike
Rather than the “cost” of losing Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, some have actually pointed to the “benefit” of losing her. As some in Nigeria have accused her of being an “agent” of international finance, it is less surprising that she has such adamant support for the World Bank. Many interesting perspectives indeed!
http://africasacountry.com/2012/03/27/the-nigerian-who-would-be-president-of-the-world-bank/
LikeLike
Ngozi is of course very qualified to head the World Bank. What would be tricky is if a neo-colonialism policy would prevent her from ascending to this top office. Also it would be surprising to watch who would ascend to Nigeria’s Finance Ministry after Ngozi’s departure.
LikeLike