The scandal over the repellent way the World Bank president is appointed has obscured an equally scandalous situation: the appointment process of the rest of the senior managers at the bank and the International Monetary Fund. They too are selected through opaque, quota-driven negotiations that are a far cry from the meritocracy these two institutions claim to value and preach to others.
When the World Bank needs a new president the charade goes like this: The public is told that the selection process will be "open, transparent and merit-based." Then, the White House announces a name — how, we do not know — and the anointed American goes through pretend job interviews with the bank's board of directors, who pretend to make a decision about which, in fact, they have no say. The handpicked American gets the job.
The indignant denunciations of this process — that it reeks of patronage and colonialism — obscure an interesting question: Why do developing countries allow this? For that matter, why do rich countries whose citizens are not considered, such as Canada and Japan, tolerate it?