in this institution. As far as they go, these figures indicate that the United States has a
considerable staff presence in both organizations and so do European nations.
Staff is, nonetheless, hired by the management of the two organizations, largely outside
the influence of member country governments. In the Fund and Bank there are no formal
staff country quotas, as for example in the United Nations agencies, and the criterion of
“broad geographical distribution” of staff to which both institutions are bound by their
Charters is applied so as not to create rigidities and not to interfere with standards of
technical competence and dedication that have traditionally been high in both of them.
The nationality distributions carry, therefore, a somewhat ambiguous meaning. They do
appear to be roughly consistent with both an hypothesis of size and national political
influence of members, reflected in the “revealed choices” of management concerning
hiring, but also with geography. Location of the institutions (Washington D.C.)11 and
cultural affinity, favor US nationals, nationals of English speaking countries, here
included developing countries such India and Pakistan, at the expense of Japanese and
perhaps some continental European nationalities.12
Management is powerful in both institutions, given their size 13 and the hierarchical type
of organization to which they conformed for a long time (now stronger in the IMF than in
the WB, but almost equally so in both of them until the 1990s). Top management in
effects controls the agenda setting, formally and substantively. Formally, each Executive
Director can put any item on the agendas of either institution, but in practice this is never
done. The time and content of the agendas are determined by top managements, often
without substantive consultation with their Boards. In addition, given the strong
consensus-propensity of both institutions, the analyses of staff and the skill of
management in presenting problems and possible solutions that can aggregate a vast
number of shareholders, assume a key importance. They largely determine the boundaries
of many debates and mediate among shareholders. In both ways influence is exerted.
Managers are chosen up to certain level (Country Director in the WB and Division Chief
in the IMF) by their respective Heads almost exclusively on the basis of technical
competence. Here skills are both necessary and sufficient for being appointed. Beyond
that, and up to the next level (Vice-President in the WB and Director of Departments in
the IMF), managers are chosen on the basis of both competence and nationality.
Competence at this level is still necessary, but not sufficient to be chosen for the positions
in question. At the top levels (Managing Directors in the WB and Deputy Managing
Director(s) in the IMF) the choices are clearly political, which means that nationality
becomes a necessary condition for the nomination. Therefore, by looking at the
nationality of top managers in both institutions, some inference can be made as to the
relative influence of shareholders.
The Presidents of the World Bank have all been US nationals. The World Bank’s
managerial structure has changed a great deal over time. But, when a number 2 position
11 By Charter, the institutions must be located in the country that holds the largest share of their capital.
12 There may be as well supply constraints at work. Staff of some nationalities could be in short supply.
13 The World bank has nearly 9000 staff. The IMF about 2600.